Why would anyone use an axe over any other weapon?

What if you're a filthy miner like me, who can't get a hold onto fancy smancy weapons like Thaddeus Silvercock over there.

Oh yes, and I forgot to mention; it reks maille.
You can probably buy a shitty messer or something. Or just use a quarterstaff.

Simple. Steal some of the valuable ore for yourself, sell it and buy yourself a fancy new weapon.

I mean, this is a bait thread but I'll take it.

An axe could be quite good against shields, was more likely to incap a soldier you hit with it and had utility based on the rear end. (ie pick, hook, or none if it were a hand axe, but then you could toss it too) As far as nimble goes, well, to get properly nimble with a sword took a lot of practice and a dedicated producer of swords. I mean, theres a reason swords werent the standard armament for large scale war for a lot of folks despite what media would tell you.

Course I usually look back round ~3500bc when humans really first started kicking the shit out of each other. Uruk, Ur, and so on.

I dunno mate, maybe it has a place based on the materials and training available to the culture that was using it? Maybe there isnt a single superior weapon that defeats all weapons because terrain, training, supplies, supporting artisans and culture not to mention the indiviual vagaries of the strategic commander, and quality of the staff officers playing an enormous role in the winner of the battle, not to mention the war.

I just dunno man. What thes the point of a thread like this? Really? Axe, katana, spear. Lets lump my dick in there because I've personaly slain a few dragons with it.

Far more agile than a mace and still has enough punch to fuck up armour that a sword can't. I'd take one over a sword any day.

>choosing a sidearm over your main weapon

Fight me, faget.

Enjoy your death peasant.

>2 lines of greentext with no substantial argument or proof of point outside of arbitrary conjecture
Like I said, how are you going to smash hardened oak doors with your piddly ass sword? I'm sure we've all seen forged in fire, your sword is going to chip and shatter in a hilarious manner, while my clump of vaguely sharpened iron on a stick is both cheap to produce, and more effective for that application. A mixed raiding party of axes and swords will almost always be more effective than a party filled with swords, assuming even numbers and quality of equipment.

>only good for armour
I don't get this. Are talking from a game perspective? You better be or there might be something wrong with you perception of potential injury.

Fucking c'mere so I can deck ya cunt.

You fucking kick the door down you pussy.

My axe is swifter than mace and no knaves' sword can harm my plate armour. Check mate you in-bred serf.

Get back in line Hansel. The Swiss are charging with their pikes again.

>I mean, theres a reason swords werent the standard armament for large scale war for a lot of folks despite what media would tell you.
Yeah, but that's also 'cause they're short and generally shit for actual warfare (just like the kind of axes OP's probably talking about, seeing as pollaxes are fairly obviously awesome in combat).
You need full plate armour to feasibly use a mace and not be performing an elaborate form of suicide.
Getting a bone broken is a whole level below geting an arm sliced off.

>kicking down a hardened oak door that's potentially buttressed
Enjoy your dislocated hip or separated shoulder. If you're strong enough to kick down a door like that, using an axe would make it pathetically easy.

>reloads crossbow from the rampart

What kind of village has such doors? Richfagistan?

Although you can use long, two-handed maces without full plate.

>Orders commoners to load a trebuchet

Y'all fags need daggers in your lives. Those dinky little things can provide innumerable uses to the creative minds.

>Getting a bone broken is a whole level below geting an arm sliced off
You're still fucked no matter what.
>Its just a broken arm, its still good
>*takes mace to the face

>this amount of pleb
Basically everywhere oak trees grow, and they're quite common. It was a standard building material at the time for normal peasants. Have fun raiding these "unarmed townsfolk" when your stupid sword can't cut through a single door with a bunch of assorted shit behind it.

Every place that has fucking trees and nearly competent woodworkers.

>signals the cavalry countercharge

This stuff is relative. You can fight with a broken arm. You can even fight with broken ribs. Yes, you can do serious damage with a mace, but it's not close to the damage you can do with a sword (or an axe). You're in a LOT of trouble if you have an amputated limb, or thrust wounds in the chest.

Here's an Easton on it: youtube.com/watch?v=jBBC4MX5Nxg

There's others, if you can be bothered to search.
>not just setting everything on fire
Who's the pleb now?

This, fucking love me some dagger action.
Even better with poisons applied.

All other weapons are for idiots that don't know how to sneak.

You know what's better than poisoned daggers?

Fucking poison.

You know what's better than poison?

Traitors.

You know what's better than traitors?

Keeping people in line so you don't need to deal with them in the first place.

>fail ambush
>the guy draws his sword
>you're dead because he has reach advantage

great fucking weapon

Shit, you almost got me. 8/10.

>setting FIRE HARDENED OAK on fire
You could try, but that shit isn't burning any time soon. You're more likely to burn their thatched roofs than the door, and either way, using an axe is still better.

>has pikes
I was talking about the roofs.

Yeah but keeping people in line just isn't stabby enough, y'know?
I mean, sure not having traitors is great and all but then I have no reason to apply poison and stab captain Sterosa in his sleep.

Simple, don't fail.
Also use a dagger that has stopping power.
Nobody said a stiletto was a good choice for anything but opening letters.

Strangling is easier. More fun, too, for all involved. Stabbing is just...anticlimactic.

>Fight guy in a cave and his sword scraps across the wall
>Stab him in the face with superior dagger
What you gonna do now?

It sacrifices some of the smashiness of a mace for the cuttiness of a sword. It's like a smashy sword, why wouldn't you want to smash someone and cut them at the same time?

>I was talking about the roofs.
No, you weren't because you would have said that in the first place. Check and mate.
>Professional Atheism: 1
>People Who Like Swords: 0

I did. So did Italian assassins. Stilettos are pretty good.

Cinquedeas are more suited for actual fighting, however.
Half sword.

My point is you're kinda overestimating the human body's capability to perform while having injuries even with adrenaline. There would be no ignoring a broken bone or cracked ribs, unless you're from hollywood. There would be no grunting and then angrily swinging back, you take that kind of injury and you're gonna drop.

>Why would anyone use an axe over any other weapon?
Cost.
A sword is significantly more expensive, and a much more specialized of a tool then an axe.

>Loads cannons
>insults enemies mothers.

What about just a regular war pick?

and harder to make

Axes are cheap to make, require less steel (usually) and will both slice flesh and pulverize bone. They are reasonably useful against armor and can mount a piercing spike on their reverse side. Axe heads can be shaped to make pulling an enemy's shield aside easier. Finally, axes are just very instinctive weapons - anyone who can use a club can use an axe with a modicum of proficiency.

Their main disadvantages are their point of balance being clumsy, their short reach, and the lack of hand protection.

You severely underestimate it. People get shot; they don't drop, they keep going. And eventually drop, yes, but hell -- even a few seconds is a loooong time in fighting.
Not by the later medieval period, at least. I think you're correct for beforehand, however.

That said, war axes are exactly as specialised as a sword. You can't cut trees with a war axe.

What if the individual in specific cannot bring in their weapon into an area. The dagger but it's nature is concealable and works wonders as a holdout weapon

Knife fighting - AKA "The winner dies in hospital"

>Flanks with Cavalry
>Hakkaa päälle!

Stabbing on it's own user.
That's what the poison is for.
I mean, let's face it. A dagger is the tool of a master, and what master cannot make even a simple task into a work of art.

I mean, apply a light poison and make it look like you're botching the job. Maybe stab the wrong place or get a light cut off on their face.
After about a minute of the wound being there the poison is already in their system and it starts.
Depending on your poison they'll shake a little, maybe turn purple. My poison? Hand crafted for maximum potency, like magic in a vial. First comes the blood, from their mouth and eyes. Sometimes the ears. Then comes the spasms, never gentle.
Then you get to smell it. The burning. They always check the wound, always. Their faces are priceless.

You know, most people would have a sword and a dagger.
Same's true of most armed fighting.

>this post

These threads always assume ancient people were genius weaponologists.
The truth is, the average idiot peasant would probably feel more comfortable with an axe since he uses one in his daily life. Others might pick an axe over a sword because it was cheaper, or they thought it looked scarier.
Its like how we have all these high tech modern guns, but some people still prefer the 1911

But you don't hold them in your arms as they die, do you? You don't spend every single second killing them. Strangling is not like your one-touch method; you must constantly strangle to kill. And your opponent will fight it, every moment, but they can't change anything. Only with strangling do you have true power, because they know everything about your plans, and yet they cannot change a thing. But you, in your infinite wisdom, may let them live, simply by -- letting go. Not so with your method; once you have touched the body, you are a slave to your poisons, just as much as they are.
The average peasant used swords and staffs you dumb fuck. Axes weren't cheaper. And, people were actually pretty knowledgeable about the stuff they used to routinely protect themselves from death.

Mission accomplished.

A shot from a modern day pistol has way less force than a mace blow. One is a tiny chunk of lead the other is a heavy slab of steel. I don't underestimate the human body, it would be frail under severe physical trauma, even the well trained ones. And a split second is plenty enough time for the opposition to land another blow.

If you've ever taken a strong serious punch before, then imagine that but harder, faster, and with jagged metal spikes.

Inb4 glorious Nippon steel

There're more Easton posts about this, but I'm lazy. Long and the short of it is there's definite evidence of people fighting after large wounds, and maces deal the least of all wounds.

Uses of Axe
>Chop wood to build boat and sail to england
>Cut english monk arteries like vikings did
>Stab and prod them to make sure their god did not ressurect them
>smash the nuns with the flat end and rape them in the confession booth
>chop down monk house for firewood and make a grand fire
>burn corpses on the fire and dance around it while snorting a bit of death cap
>pray to thor for him to enchant your axe with lightning +1
>go home with gold and jewelry to sexy nordic wife and kids and herd sheep
I love axes

Why didn't everyone just use the Zanbato?

>less force
you know that impact force is impulse right? so it involves not only mass but also velocity, in fact, it is the product of the two which is of interest, which means fast bullets are perfectly capable of imparting more force upon impact than a mace swing from peasant mcpoor

>missile volley

axes are harder to deflect because of how much force you can put behind the point

>be a nigger who attacks unarmed people
>pretend to be tough
>meet Saxon warriors
>get trounced
>meet Franks
>get trounced
>get driven away from Ireland
>get driven away from America by stone age burgerclaps
>get trounced by Moors in Spain
>have Hedeby burned down by Slavs

Because it is there and you have nothing other handy.

They beat swords in the triad.

It's never about the control. Never has been.
Sure the level of power you get, the control from strangling is... Euphoric. But the poisons are art.
Strangling isn't flashy enough, almost too much of a fight. You don't even get to see the despair unless you do it in front of a mirror.
Poisons are just simple better.

>be a nigger
>nigger
So you are not talking about vikings then? Don't know why you are replying to me.

Alternatively
>be a normal, sane, right-thinking person who wants to get filthy rich, not die on some gods-forsaken battlefield for no good reason
Or, to put it another way
>get trounced by Saxons
>get trounced by Franks
>get trounced by Irish
>get trounced by Moors
>still have massive empire
You don't see the despair?

You are looking them in the eyes, of course.

Flashiness is...unnecessary, and your flaw. You act like you are performing, but who are you performing to? Surely not yourself. Your opponent? But your opponent is for your use, not his. No; do what is best, what is most effective, what is good (they are all the same thing), not what is most superficially gratifying.

There is an art to ugliness. It is a much finer one than simple beauty, with all its cheap tricks.

>snownigger strikes again

First, Vikings used both swords and axes. Second, they didn't wear fucking horned helmets.

>snowniggers
I'll admit, I have never heard of this new type of pokenigger. Sandniggers were the last niggermon I heard of.

>how often are you going to chop through doors to raid villages with your piddly sword?
How often are you going to chop through doors with your war axe that has a blade as thin as a sword's?

You don't cut wood with an axe you use to cut people, a woodcutting axe is a short thick wedge, a war axe's head is longer, much thinner, and is typically that constant thinness all the way to the haft.

I thought thr average peasant used spears or polearms?
people also drank from lead cups, and thought that flies grew from meat. While there were plenty of brilliant ancient warriors what makes you think that most weren't just medieval version of what /k/ calls "Fudds"?

>conquer Great Britain
>create the world's greatest empire
Normans were vikings too.

I'd love to RP with you sometime user.

>Axes weren't cheaper.

Yes they were.

>They were descended from Norse ("Norman" comes from "Norseman"[1]) raiders and pirates from Denmark, Iceland and Norway
See when you put pre-medieval scandinavian genes in populations everything is better

>I thought thr average peasant used spears or polearms?
In war, maybe. I thought we were talking out-and-about, 'cause the average peasant using a spear or polearm would be in war, and the average peasant in war would be a trained soldier.
I think you just did.
Not by any appreciable amount, assuming you're not getting the good stuff.
>youtube.com/watch?v=dy1fcRG0A3g

They also used spears which in fact was their most common weapon. That's right faggots even axe posterboys only used the piece of shit axes only as sidearms.

No you fucking idiot by the time they conquered England they were genetically french. Norse married with the locals you dumb scandifag.

"""French"""

>Normans were vikings too.

TOP KEK. No, they weren't. Normans were Frenchmen who descended from vikings. Even then, by the time of William the Conqueror the Normans were already heavily mixed with the local pre-Norman French that lived in what is now known as Normandy.

They spoke French, considered themselves French, lived in France, and were subjects of the King of France.

Normans are not, never were, and never will be vikings. If anything, the Saxons were closer to vikings than the Normans were. The Saxons had housecarls (Nordic equivalent is the huscarl) who went into battle carrying two-handed axes. After the Normans defeated the Saxons, many Saxon warriors joined the Varangian Guard.

Practical. Ever tried chopping a tree down with a sword or a mace?
Axes are versatile.

Well weapons are typically used for war, and irl murderhobos weren't all that common

the vikings are dead

Weapons are used for many more purposes than war, from duelling to self-defence to -- sport.
Ever tried chopping a tree down with a war axe?

They're not THAT versatile.
Normans were Normans.

Prepare to get assaulted by angry nerds who will tell you that battle axes could never be used as tools, and that domestic axes COULD NEVER be used in battle.

But since you posted it in here and I saw it, I'll answer you here.

1) Resources.
Less metal for a metal weapon. Steel and iron were expensive, and the fact that your haft was wood made them way cheaper.

2) Availability
While there are axes made for war, many people fought with tool axes, which are then used because you already have a decent weapon and cant afford a better one.

3) Binding at Range
with a 'battle' axe (not 2 sided, simply one that has curves behind the blade like those shown on the example), you can bind your opponent's weapon with the head of your weapon, rendering their weapon useless to them and under your control. Options from here generally involve knifing your opponent while they try to regain their weapon.

4) Options, like a hammer
axes can have a spike, like a hammer, which allows them to punch through softer armor and beat people somewhat like a hammer does.

5) Damage profile and Cleaving
Unlike traditional swords, which do struggle to kill in single blows unless the user is very well trained, axes, with greater mass directly behind the blade, bite deeper and are able to sever limbs, something even heavier, shorter swords like messers or broadswords can struggle to accomplish.

6) Skill to produce
Because swords have to have crossguards mounted above handles set in place with a pommel over a tang, they take skill to properly construct. Axes by comparison are easier to put together, so they are seen, related someone to point 1, as an easier AND cheaper weapon to mass produce.

7) Early Period Strength
Swords before steel were prone to bending or breaking, the classic issue of either being soft and malleable or hand and brittle. Axes were, then, a way of making a smaller, more dense weapon that was not as likely to break on you if it came into contact with something hard.

>Ever tried chopping a tree down with a war axe?
.. have you?

No, but some richer buggers have.

Why would anyone choose anything that isn't a katana? Modern science shows that nothing can stand up to their cutting power.