Why would anyone use an axe? They are pieces of SHIT!

Why would anyone use an axe? They are pieces of SHIT!
>worse at dealing with armor than warhammers and maces
>less versatile than swords

the only proper axe is the woodcutting one

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions_in_Hagia_Sophia
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why would anyone make a bait-thread? They are SHIT!
>worse at making a point than quality posting
>complete waste of time

the only proper posts are the non-shit kind

Where's the traditional game in this post?

Ok sorry you're right that post was off topic so let me make it more Veeky Forums related

AXES ARE FUCKING SHIT

AND SO ARE DWARFS

War axes are pretty rockin' desu

DELETE THIS

Oh good, it's this thread.
Again.
Congrats, user. I am the triggeredest.

>war axes used by practically every culture on earth for millennia

Since war axes only require a tiny bit of metal, you could make a ton of 'em instead of one sword. Same goes for spears, which were always popular, and in fact warriors usually carried more than one weapon, usually the axe was to be used after they had tossed their spear or broke it.
They are mostly effective against unarmored opponents, yes, but realize that people were unarmored for the majority of history. It was a small 300 year interim when full plate became easy to manufacture and when guns completely revolutionized the system. Warfare has been going on for 12000 years.

Most warriors carried spear + sword not spear + axe. I wonder fucking why.

I mean, if you're talking about the romans, I guess.

and greeks

And hoplites and pretty much every non levy warrior from history yeah. .

Greeks had axes and they weren't afraid to use 'em.

>Scythians
>Greeks

all axefags are retarded

Try harder. Dwarfs are a trope in various media other than traditional games, and did not originate in traditional games. The relation is not explicit.
If you had said "why would anyone use an axe IN A TRADITIONAL GAME", it would be on topic.
Preferably a specific game with specific rules, because a lot of games have objective mechanical differences between weapons that can provide an answer besides "fuck you I like axes", and we would have something to discuss.

Non-white OP detected

Axes can be used to hook over the tops of shields and pull them down.

Funny because the only people extensively using axes were asiatic while Europe prefered swords.

Dumb amerishart uneducated mutt.

>scythians

>greeks

And so is OP, so we've come full circle.

Did you know, you can use the axe's beard to hook behind a shield, and pull it away?

That guy looks mighty smug about it, though.

>Able to hook shields, limbs, weapons
>Able to stab people with the top spike
>Hits harder than a sword
>Glorious Viking/Germanic weapon
Its like you don't even want to be a man

Maybe in Mount and Blade.

>muh vikiangz xD

yeah killing a bunch of unarmed people and running away from the army is sure a sign of badassery right Tyrone? Just like when your dad mugged an old lady.

Axes are easy to make, only the edge requires high quality metal, and they create devastating wounds. The rounded blade of an axe ensure that there's always as little contact as possible on the area it hits, ensuring good cutting capability. You can also stick a bunch of things on the other end and the top, in case you have some stabbing to do.

Wow that's how it's like in Dark Souls?

Well since this thread is shit anyway, whats more important for a military scout? Detecting others, or avoiding detection?

That's what it's like for virtually every culture on Earth.

Want some interesting historical trivia?

Post 14th century everyone had a sword as a sidearm including archers. I wonder why they didn't bother with axes. Could it be that they were useless sacks of shit?

(You)

>Vikings
>Tyrone
What?

They're both important. The point is, you want as much information on the enemy while they have as little information on you as possible. You're going to HAVE to scout in order to gather that information. Avoiding detection does require that you know what you're avoiding.

>vikings
>steal and bail out before the army comes

>niggers
>steal and bail out before the cops come

only a nigger could glorify them

Well, the Vikings did raid Ireland.

That's just stupid.

>le edgy nigger word
Get you gone, /pol/tard.

>Danish axes
>Not more than capable of giving you a bad day no matter what armor you're wearing

>Why would anyone use axe's?
I know it's bait but I may as well explain. Regardless as to whether you think the axe is an effective weapon. The problem is your thinking in terms of person to person combat, not the massive wars where armies would clash which we commonly see.
But there are three reasons why you would choose a axe over a sword for your army.
1. Cost effective, compared to say a sword or mace axes were extremely cheap to manufacture making them good reliable weapons for viking raiding parties. Axe's were also easy as hell to repair where a mace or a sword would require a smithy.
2. Easy to use, the amount of training needed to use a axe is minimal, only weapon that would require less training would be a spear.
3. They doubled as a tool, if you have an army that is setting up camp its cheaper for you to give some men weapons that can cut wood than supplying them all with swords (which were significantly more expensive than an axe.)
And some other things to factor in. People in armor during wars were pretty uncommon. Because armor was expensive. You could effectively arm ten people with axe's for the cost it would take to buy good fitting breast plate. I don't care what you say if you have an army of 100 people all who have axes and one guy full plate, the hundred axes are gonna win.

Moooooooooot, HEMA-fags are at it again!

axes were used against and most effective versus chainmail, which was the most widely used armour because it did not have to be custom fit

swords didnt generate enough power and maces dont produce the same concussive force because there is flex in the material

source : i have been in many medieval battles

WE

>implying he has a father

>They doubled as a tool

that's where I stopped reading. Fuck off with your pop history you might as well talk about ho katanas could slice through armor or how slaves built the pyramids.

Tyrone doesn't have dad

Reminder that among other things, the Danes conquered England and kicked so much ass several anglo-saxon kingdoms ceased to exist and even Alfred the Great popular among Angloboos had to pay danegæld. Danes also succesfully occupied Paris and had to be paid to leave.

>3. They doubled as a tool, if you have an army that is setting up camp its cheaper for you to give some men weapons that can cut wood than supplying them all with swords (which were significantly more expensive than an axe.)
Actually, that's bullshit. War-axes are pretty shit at chopping wood, and woodcutting axes aren't all that good in a fight compared to an actual weapon designed for combat.

>conquered a country consisting of small kingdoms ready to jump at each other's throats
>then got kicked out anyway

impressive

Axes are generally used in combat to wing with the heavy force of a hammer, but the addition of a curved cutting edge to concentrate that force into a single point, whichever part of the curve meets the target first.
They're basically very heavy and very precise falchions/scimitars/katanas.

England was ruled by Danes for a 100 years.

Oh yes roughly 1kg axe is really a heavy crushing force compared to roughly 1kg falchions, scimitars and katanas.

Surely you aren't retarded enough to believe war axes were the same as the ones lumberjacks use?

>Danes also succesfully occupied Paris and had to be paid to leave.

If you would read the wikipedia article you took this info from you would know that they were not paid specifically to leave but to sack a rebeling town. Alfred rekt them and used them as lap dogs.

That pretty much sums up a lot of viking raids.

What? Did you even read that post?

Even if an axe and a falcion are the same total weight, the axe has all of it in the end. On top of that, the swing of an axe is completely different to that of a falchion. You have much more driving force behind an axe than you di of any kind of sword.

They were paid to leave him alone, at their first encounter he wasn't in any position to rekt anybody.

>axes can't do anything to armor!
>best weapon of the Medieval Age was a combination of a spear and a battle axe
k

>eeny meeny miney mo, I wonder where this axe will go

Frogs shat all over vikings just like Saxons, Celts, Moors and fucking stone age native amerisharts did.

I think the long needle like spike might have something to do with it.

Shat all over them so hard that even when viking mercs got cornered during a retreat, they still send the frogs running after killing the french king, or that one time Paris fell to a Danish siege.

I'm not trying to vikangz here, but the anti-viking Veeky Forums memes are just as retarded as the nupagan teenage viking masturbation.

The axe head is still very useful, vs less than optimally armored opponents (or their horses), or to hook or bash someone to the ground before stabbing.
The needle is essential, but the axe head isn't just a fancy cross for a spear.

I could solo 50 vikings.

>viKANGZ couldn't even beat Turks
lmao

>friendly reminder that the Byzantines lost to the Turks

Kek

>friendly reminder for every battle the byzantines lost to the turks they won ten
>Bush did manzikert
>ANATOLIA BELONGS TO THE GREEKS

>devastating against mail armor
>good vs. shields
>the big ones fuck up horses like it's nothing
>cheaper than swords

If you're short on money and face mail armored guys with big shields, then axes are a good alternative to swords.
You can not do much stabbing, but for that you have a sax with you.

But they could shitpost.

>Danegaeld in a nutshell

it's groundhog thread again

I want this to be true

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions_in_Hagia_Sophia

op is a viking