Whats better? Dwarf with axe or hammer

dwarf with both....

sadly i dont have a pic like that.

so kind of like the OP one? Also i do think both is the right answer. i like image of the dwarf basicly being a giant walking, drinking, talking, armory of death.

Hammer, because warhammers are badass.

Assuming roughly equivalent to IRL usage, dwarves with axes would favour unarmoured opponents, hammer dwarves would be ideally deployed for (plate-)armoured opponents; axes are for irregular fighting (and possibly/probably killing elves), whereas hammers would be very prominent in a dwarf vs dwarf war.
That could have some interesting effects on how the weapons are seen culturally

I got ya

Hammers are more effective in Dwarf Fortress

Combat shovels

Well Dwarfs have crazy dense muscles and upper body strength compared to a human so they would probably favor weapons with a large cutting edge or that are designed for thrusting.

And I just realized the ideal weapons for Dwarfs are Katanas.

katanas arent very heavy though last time i checked...unless we're talking washing poles levels of length wich...might actually be quite useful in close corners to stab too....holy shit you might be onto something here.

>the ideal weapons for Dwarfs are Katanas.

That's actually pretty badass.

>but realisticly wich one would be more useful to a dwarf?

Neither. Dwarves are technically depicted as subterranean folk, working in tight tunnels and so on. Tight tunnels that it'd be hard to swing an axe or hammer in, especially fighting with your friends.

The real dwarven weapon, realistically? Spears. Spears and short swords. Lots of thrusting power and little room needed to do it.

That heavily depends on both the material they're made out of and what version you're playing. Adamantium warhammers are safety kits for your jailers and there was a while there where picks and especially whips were wildly deadly because contact area ended up disproportionately important when calculating damage and armor penetration.

obviously. although once they arent in tight caves spears dont seem that useful. theyre way too tall to carry on your person easily when you are short and when the enemy can come from any direction it also looses its stopping power. seeing how dwarves often go to wars or become adventurers it would make sense that they use other stuff.

>cold steel sells fucking hurlbats now

I hate and love that company so much.

...

>The ideal weapon for a midget is a 24" blade
I guess in proportion it would be like a human with a medieval longsword, but that's not a whole lot of reach.

>inb4 turning in a tunnel

>Dwarven rogues use chisels instead of daggers.
>Dwarven barbarians big rocks
>Druids use stalacites\stalagmites
>Bards play the musical spoons

They're spiked on both ends so they just turn around in place and grab the one next to them.

Come to think of it, they probably have pikes running horizontally through the formation as well, for bracing and in case they need to make any 90 degree turns. This is the origin of the Rook piece in human chess.

>Tribal, primordial looking dwarves
Weird...yet intriguing.

>what is a shield wall
Tunnel fighting would be perfect for it.

well I was thinking the Dwarfs would have separate weapons for tunnel fighting than they do for everyday use.

Both along with many other tools like a Pickaxe. Why should a craftsman have only one tool?

Dwarves fighting in tunnels would carry probably three weapons. The first would be a spear, pike, or other polearm. This, when used in combination with a shield, would prove to be a nearly impenetrable force. However, let's say there was a penetration, or for whatever reason spears weren't viable anymore. What then? Dwarves would then want to carry a secondary weapon. Something shorter, and easily carried. Probably a stabbing weapon, so they wouldn't interfere with others too much. In other words, probably a short sword. Other one handed weapons of any sort would realistically work. However, they'd also need a tertiary weapon, in case fights got REALLY close. As in, rolling around grappling on the floor close. In that case, a trench knife would be idea. All the benefits of a knife, combined with knuckledusters for when you don't even have the space to use it like a knife.

A dwarf on dwarf war would be hellish to fight on the front lines. Spears wouldn't work very well against all the armor and shields. Fights would probably inevitably devolve into chaotic melees, consisting heavily of grappling. As such, you might find conflicts instead settled by a combat between champions.

Well, a knife anyway. If we go with the notion that they are vikingish, you might have them toting around Seaxes, to stab Goblins or whatever that get in their face to death.

I'm going to agree with this.

Spears are the perfect weapon for dwarves.

Axes and hammers just seem like terrible weapons in general. Axes are made for chopping wood and hammers for hammering iron or nails. They don't seem like they'd be very effective weapons compared to spears or swords.

>Axes are made for chopping wood and hammers for hammering iron or nails. They don't seem like they'd be very effective weapons compared to spears or swords.

>Knives are made for chopping food, they don't seem like they'd be very effective weapons compared to axes or hammers.
Surprise, if you compare a tool to a weapon, the weapon makes a better weapon. Construction hammers and woodcutting axes are not the same as the weapons used in combat, though. Between swords, axes, and hammers, there is no "better," there's only different situations that one or another is more effective in.

Of course, if we're talking about standard-issue military weapons, then spears do make more sense anyway, because the reach advantage is huge on a battlefield. Ultimately it comes down to how dwarves are flavored in your world and what kind of enemies they would be fighting, though.

I'm no history expert but I don't recall ever reading about a general outfitting his soldiers with battleaxes or warhammers.

Those weapons were more ceremonial than practical.

I know this is fantasy and that dwarves stereotypically wield axes. It makes no sense for them to do so from a practical standpoint however.

>I'm no history expert but I don't recall ever reading about a general outfitting his soldiers with battleaxes or warhammers.
Then you're fucking retarded, and have no knowledge of history. Warhammers were used extensively to deal with knights in armor. Axes of all sorts were used for millenia. You can see ancient egyptian hieroglyphics of soldiers wielding axes.

Please stop, you're just embarrassing yourself

handgun, pike

axes, hammers and picks all fit thanks to their use as tools, but they'd be relegated to sidearm status in actual combat

We're talking about the middle ages. Why are you bringing up ancient Egypt?

Axes were replaced by falchions which were quickly replaced with other weapons to deal with plate armored knights. Hammers were one of them, although certainly not the most effective. These hammers had a spike that could pierce plate.

The most effective weapons for dealing with plate were probably the billhook or the godendag.

Show me a medieval army equipped with axes then.

Idiot.

Not even worth answering... look for viking axes. Piercing armor? You saw too many movies, the defense you had to beat in low and mid middleage was the shield. Not the plate.

>We're talking about the middle ages. Why are you bringing up ancient Egypt?
No, you made a sweeping statement of retardation. But okay, let's take a look at nations which used axes. The Danes. Norwegians. Russians. Pretty much everyone else to a lesser extent.

>Axes were replaced by falchions
This is retardation of the highest order.

>These hammers had a spike that could pierce plate.
They're called warhammers, and whether or not it could pierce plate is a matter of some debate. And there's a reason it had a hammer head and wasn't just the spike. And you know what's different between one of those and the ones you name later? IT'S ONE HANDED, BITCH.

>The most effective weapons for dealing with plate were probably the billhook or the godendag.
Are you fucking serious? Are you being serious right now? No. Fuck no. The bill isn't the best for the task, it's better served at hooking and stabbing. The fucking godendag was definitely not it, and you're retarded for even suggesting it. Arguably it was the bec de corbin, which is essentially the same thing as the polehammer. Another strong contender is the poleaxe. Which, instead of a hammer head HAD AN AXE HEAD. HOLY FUCK. YOU KNOW NOTHING OF HISTORY.

You're retarded.

Vikings raids took three centuries before plate armour was in vogue.

They were fighting peasants not armoured knights.

There were two ways to defeat a knight in plate: pierce the armour or strike one of the exposed areas.

Armour could be pierced with the correct weapon such as a warhammer or godendag as the Flemmish peasants showed the French army.

You're the one who watches too many movies and doesn't read enough books.

American education I swear...

>We're talking about the middle ages.
What? No we're not. We're talking about "history," which includes all locations and time periods.

But since you're going to move the goalposts, here. The most basic of sources that you could find with a literal 5-second google search.

>Axes were replaced by falchions which were quickly replaced with other weapons to deal with plate armored knights. Hammers were one of them, although certainly not the most effective. These hammers had a spike that could pierce plate.
Citation fucking needed. Falchions and axes do very different things, user. They coexisted because they fulfilled different niches, as do hammers.

>The most effective weapons for dealing with plate were probably the billhook or the godendag.
Pole weapons are more effective primary weapons in general, yes. But we're talking about sidearms here. That's like saying "This type pistol isn't useful because an automatic rifle is better." Once an armored opponent gets inside a pole weapon's reach, you're at a severe disadvantage if you don't have a shorter sidearm.

Not americano for sure. I do not know where you may be from, user, but your butt is hurt, your facts confused and your argumentation abilities impaired.

You the one who think armor in medieval times was only plate. This is fucking stupid. Plate harness only gained real traction towards the end of the period known as the middle ages.

>They were fighting peasants not armoured knights.
Bullshit. Ever hear of the Norwegian invasion of England? Lots of fighting against armored opponents. Or any other time. The Danes and the Norwegians fought a lot of guys, and fought a lot of pitched battles.

And guess what could pierce through armor of the period, or hit you through it? AXES.

You are legitimately retarded.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Nobody used axes against men-at-arms in plate armour.

It is obvious that you get your "education" on medival weaponry from watching Berserk.

>What? No we're not. We're talking about "history," which includes all locations and time periods.
We're talking about fantasy which, in most settings, is equivalent to medieval times.

>Citation fucking needed. Falchions and axes do very different things, user. They coexisted because they fulfilled different niches, as do hammers.
Not really. They both cleave things. Falchions were developed as a result of axes being inaccurate and unreliable. They tried to combien the balance of a sword with the force of an axe.

Stop trying to make educated arguments based on hollywood. Falchions against plate armor? No fucking way. Even axes would fare better against armor for the sheer fact that they'd have more impact on them, as the mass is centered more towards the end than with falchions. Not necessarily for cutting or chopping, but for bashing heads. While warhammers tended to be better against plate, you'd generally want to bash their heads with the hammer bit first and only finish them off with the spiky end, as it had a tendency to get stuck and you wouldn't want that in a middle of a battle.
I agee that probably the best solution to plate was a poleweapon designed for impact, although billhook wasn't an impact focused tool.

You really need to stop getting your education from anime and videogames.

Axes piercing through a knight's armor? Fucking lol

>You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Nobody used axes against men-at-arms in plate armour.
Uhuh. Gotcha. Never mind the fact that the medieval period most certainly did not only use plate, and that only really got spread around in the 15th century.

>Axes piercing through a knight's armor? Fucking lol
You see this? Knight's armor. How about ? That's knight's armor. This too. This is a much later knight's armor. You see, the middle ages are not monolithic. You retardedly insist that they are monolithic blocs. They aren't.

Whoever thinks close combat weapons are piercing items has never been to real historial combat events. Any concussive injury is more disabling in combat than a cut. Our fantasy books lie, a sword is only good for killing naked people, weapon for lords to injure serfs.

Fantasy is whatever its creator wants it to be, friendo. In case you've been living under a rock, virtually every popular fantasy setting has a desert society equivalent to Egypt.

>They both cleave things.
>All weapons are the same because they all kill things
What a surprise, when you generalize broadly enough anything is true! A draw cut (from a sword) and a hacking cut (from an axe) are not the same, and if you don't understand this very basic principle then you really shouldn't be acting like you have any amount of authority on this subject.

>Falchions were developed as a result of axes being inaccurate and unreliable.
Again, cite a source. Your claim contradicts years of established research, burden of proof is on you.

But you're not going to cite one, because you're rusing us. That's the only explanation.

I've always liked the idea that the basic swing you'd use when smashing a rock or using a pickaxe is the kinda default swing most dwarves would go for - that sort of overhead, all or nothing two handed chop. Its what they know, its what they're good at, it's what they default to. If you give them a sword, they'll try the same motion with it. Thus, they use weapons that work well with that kind of motion - hammers and axes. This makes more sense, of course, with them being the tools of the dwarven citizen (and maybe militia), rather than the army, which would probably have proper weapons and training, but you'd still get a lot of them who'd want to keep an axe or hammer as a fallback option.

Tell us more about your real historical combat events, where people use sharp weapons and cripple each other for real.

Most anons here presume that dwarfs would be fighting in tight tunnels, but dwarfs mostly fight against surface-dwellers and sometimes the native population of the caves.
Spears would be great in tight tunnels but I think dwarves that knew about going to the surface would use different weapons for different enemies.
Axes for elves, Hammers for humans who actually make armor and everything against orks

No need to user, just let me go to where you are, I will put my steel helmet on you and hack at your head using the same motion, first with a sharp sword, then with a hammer. You could experiencie it and then you will choose a weapon for yourself.

>Most anons here presume that dwarfs would be fighting in tight tunnels, but dwarfs mostly fight against surface-dwellers and sometimes the native population of the caves.
Many, if not most, settings have dwarves fighting denizens of the tunnels.

I had so much hope for this thread. And now look at it.
A bunch of anons who actually seem to onow what they are talking about arguing with either a literal retard or a troll.
And no one talking about what dwarves should be armed with.
Stop feeding the troll/retard/retarded troll and get back on topic.
Why are dwarves always depicted with crossbows? If there any reason why they wouldn't use a standard bow? They have crazy upper body strength and a stable body to shoot from.

Dwarves do fight in tunnels. Their homes are in tunnels and they spend their time defending their homes from orcs, goblins and other invaders.

Dwarves aren't conquerors who march half way across the world and fight pitched battles. They're usually content to stay in their mountain halls.

>Why are dwarves always depicted with crossbows? If there any reason why they wouldn't use a standard bow? They have crazy upper body strength and a stable body to shoot from.
They're too short.

stubby arms mostly and a lack of length to truly make use of something like a greatbow (great for a dwarf), aside from that their general depiction of being very wide bodied would make it even harder on the other hand a very strong crossbow generaly for humans required some form of mechanical aid to draw for dwarfs this would be less so a problem.

Dubs don't lie, this is one tough guy.

I always figured it was because dwarves were industrious and elves already use bows, so to make that differentiation, they use crossbows. In lore reasons, partially the industrious, partially that they're short, partially that crossbows can be made almost entirely out of metal. The arms are generally metal, but the body isn't. It's easy to imagine a crossbow where that is metal as well. The only thing which isn't metal is the string, which I suppose could be metal if you REALLY wanted it to be. I wouldn't, it seems too dangerous to the user to me.

Don't forget that most proper dwarf tunnels are way fucking huge. They don't just fight in cramped 5-foot tall mineshafts.

>Spears would be great in tight tunnels

I'm going to dispute this, actually. Spears are pretty good in tight tunnels as part of a shieldwall formation, yes. But if you want to talk about one-on-one personal combat, a spear in a small, enclosed space is a recipe for disaster.

See, in personal combat, you have to compensate for the lack of allies to distract an enemy by doing a lot more swinging and less poking. For all its hollywood-ized theatric silliness, the Red Viper's fighting style in that one GoT episode is not totally inaccurate to how a spear would most effectively be used one-on-one.

So for military use, yes, spears make a lot of sense, but as a personal weapon, it would make more sense for dwarves living in tunnels to use smaller weapons that won't catch on the tunnel walls. If we assume they tend to wear heavy clothes and ceremonial armor a lot too, then they'd also want something that can still be of some use against light armor. I'm thinking punching daggers, hand axes, and the like.

both

t. critted with 5th ed dwarf on a counter attack three times in a row on kobolds

smash face

pirate

get gold

scream i want my family back after trying to adopt a gnoll

>But if you want to talk about one-on-one personal combat
Good thing we're not.

I always liked the idea of the ironbreakers in warhammer fantasy because see alot of people on the spear end seem to be forgetting that tunnel warfare is a lot more 3D then just the 2 ends in alot of cases you can have enemies simply digging around of above or even below you so a highly elite unit of heavily armored dwarfes wielding short hand axes would make alot more sence.

Tunneling like that would take a very long time, and presumably you'd be conducting counter-mining operations. Sure, you can have this elite unit, but for the most part it wouldn't be employed, which I suppose is the point.

Well, fair enough. Carry on then!

Probably axes.

Not pick axes, because who the fuck ever said that you use weapons based on your cultures ordinary life style, unless you're a peasant?

They would probably mirror the centurion style of warfare, since because of their slower movement speed due to their shortness, they would want to try and defend against an assaulting enemy while also being able to remain organized and composed, so that their heavy armor and weaponry would be used to good effect.

They would likely have short-swords as their main weapon, and have axes on the stand-by along with javelins on their back.

An elf with one of those weapons

Are you guys just trying to out retard and pretend like you guys are trolling each other? Because these are the shittiest bait posts I've seen.

I think dwarves would also have the opposite. A cadre of lightly-armoured scouts to do knife-work in the smaller tunnels goblins frequent to prevent ambushes in unfriendly caves.

This art is awesome and i hope there is a game behind it

It's hArd to imagine dwarves ever losing underground with those tactics. They're so dense and steady on their feet it would be impossible to push them back while getting stabbed in the gut.

Especially when the dwarves go absolutely decked out in heavy armor.

miners and rangers fill that niche if we're going by warhammer fantasy dwarves

Depends.

Persobally, i'd think dwarves would try and prepare proper equipment based on where they need to fight.

As said, spears and greatshields would be good in tight spaces underground against same-size opponents.

I'd figure dwarves would use plenty of great weapons to deal with bigger enemies, like trolls.

I don't thik pickaxes are such a horrible choice. Being miners, i reckon almost all dwarf would know how to use a pickaxe effectively, and in case of battle,there would't be the need to train recruits in more complex weapons, saving time and effort

Well, it does make them highly vulnerable to AOE magic and most of their foes underground are magical or psionic.

That's what the clerics behind the formation are for, casting mass cure wounds and etc.

Mass cure spells are stupidly, stupidly high level for how little effect you get from them.

It also assumes that there is anything left to heal, something a Fireball doesn't tend to leave of poor mass formation bastards.

A dwarf with a spear, because that kind of weapon makes sense for use in the underground.

Whip is best dwarf weapon.

Even Warhammer dwarves used pikes and spears to curtail skaven incursions, problem was when theyd send in rat ogres or heavily armored stormvermin. Then the war axes and hammers came out to crack augmented bones and shatter armor. Warhammer dwarves are methodical shield wall fighters who needed a weapon with weight and strength to hack off limbs and shit, which is why the Az is their main go to'er for close quarters. I also remember reading they had a problem with swords warping from smashing their enemies too hard and the blades chinking. Considering muscle density of dwarves and the shit theyre wacking over the head, Swords may not fit the bill.

Digga please !
Why not have an axe hammer ?

A tower shield of metal offers very easy protection from aoe. Halve the damage, then apply hardness, then apply damage to the shield, then allow saves, then allow energy resistance... its nothing.

Also, underground gives a huge advantage over casters that wouldn't normally apply on the surface, as the moment they enter line of sight they're generally going to be attacked in melee.

Pollaxes.
It's still an axe, but with more poll, the hammer (or axe) with handle cut off to look like Mjolnir, is retarded for combat (bad leverage), even worse for a race that is short on reach but heavy and strong, and could make great use of the lever.

i always thought of dwarves as a highly organized, patient race, especially when it comes to war. so i think they'd use large tower shield in shield wall formation with shortswords, and the back line would use spears to provide support.

of course, i also love dwarven hammer and axe imagery, so i guess they would be more traditional weapons used by elite troops, leaders and nobles. perhaps used by the vanguard and the flanks while dwarven shield walls hold the enemy in place.

>the axe or the hammer wich both seems to be quite used depending on the setting.

Follow the example of Snorri Nosebiter and use one of each.