Why would anyone use an axe? They were dog shit!

>>Doing fuck all against plate
>> Axe in OPs picture doubles as a war pick

Axe + shield probably has the advantage over sword + shield.

Axes are better than hammers on unarmed/lightly armored targets and are better than swords on armored targets.

Axes are probably the best weapon vs mail + large shields, which was the most common armor set in Europe for over a 1000 years.

No weapon that saw widespread use across large periods of time and across cultural boundaries was dog shit.

Please stop making this thread.

> Responding to base-level bait

yeah. it's a fucking axe

...

The problem with swords wasn't their price, it was sumptuary laws making them status symbols.

I feel like there's a mental advantage to it. You see some guy coming at you screaming bloody murder and then he lifts up an axe, a weapon used for executions, and that might fuck with your head. In other words, it would be interesting if axes had some sort of RPG bonus vs evil characters because it reminds them of the executioners axe.

but evil characters usually are the ones who have a boner for axes and maces

>going melee against a big monster
And that's why there is a longer handle than in a sword

U wot m8?

Kinda proving my point. Who made it anyway? Incas?

That longer handle is still going to give you a shorter reach because you need to swing it.

Do you need (You)s to sacrifice to a trolling god? Why do you keep repeating same shit every time?

Axes were viable because lack of iron. You can equip 3 times the men with axes as you can with swords.

Polearms are even better bang for your buck.

In fantasy axes cut through plate just fine.
Suck it, bitch.

For RPGs? It's all about style. I like how the Warhammer RPG does it and all one-handed axes, swords, clubs, etc. are treated as hand weapons because your players aren't expected to know medieval military history and which weapons are effective where.

Could you please do the barest research before making such wide sweeping claims? At least read about the battle of Hastings (1066) to understand some very basics of axe fighting. Additionally, you mention plate armor but even in that scenario long axes (or combination polearms using an axe head) were extremely common weapons because of their effectiveness on that battlefield.

I mean, really, your post is dog shit.

>a-axes were good because muh halberds!
>posts a painting where everyone is using the spike and not the axe head

lmao

The post is a copypaste.

>not as versatile as swords
Well somebody has only ever played video games before. What uses do swords have besides combat? What kind of sword and what kind of axe are we talking about? Are you comparing a hatchet to a falcata? Sure you can stab with straight swords, but approximately 50% of all sword designs are single bladed and don't have stabby bits. Axes on the other hand, a dane axe can be thrown quite accurately unlike a sword, a war axe has a stabbing tip and a pick on the backside, a poleaxe can dismember enemies and cut through armor like no sword can, and may have a pick or blunt on the backside and a stabbing tip. Bearded axes have advanced gripping techniques through which they can be used to effectively parry, whereas two-handed swords cannot. Double-edged great axes are a meme anyhow.

What can you do OUTSIDE of battle with swords that you can't do better with axes? Chop meat, fell trees, prepare firewood, hammer nails or stakes (for tents) if they have a blunt back, hook it behind a shield and disarm the opponent (alright, that's combat), hook it behind/on top of a wall and pull yourself up (dwarven climbing technique!), cutting rope in a single swipe, shave, open crates and barrels, destroy external locks, break down barricades and doors, inflict non-lethal damage, stirr a pot (with the handle), probably more that I can't think of right now

Also, a 'heat metal' effect won't affect axe wielders.

>cut through armor

what a retard

>implying battle axes were ever used for woodcutting

kill yourself

Why are YOU giving him (You)s?

Desperate people felled trees with stones, some cold soldier must have used a battle axe for this purpose at some point.

Still more handy than a sword.

Pike and shot warfare sure looks fun.

Oh look its this thread again

What you dont realize OP is that axes have been used long before plate armor even existed and when resources and methods of production were less efficient. In the Dark Ages a Dane Axe swung at some middling spearman fodder with nothing but a brigandine vest and an iron half-helm is going to fuck him up.

Axes break shields, they have long reach. They arent as good as swords but swords becoming an easy thing to equip people with is like a blip on the historical timeline. People have been fighting with axes for literally almost as long as they could shape stone and metal.

Get over your rage boner against axes and understand the historical context and the fact that in a fantasy game people just want to use whats cool. If the game were realistic it would not be fun and a peasant militia of spearmen would wreck your sword wielding adventurers all day.

>implying adventurers would carry another 15 lbs woodcutter's axe and miss out on 15 lbs of loot

No u

>implying a fucking ogre with 24 Str is unable to cut straight through platemail with a poleaxe

No u

>>implying battle axes were ever used for woodcutting

You can certainly use a saddle axe to whittle bowls and spoons... They're about the right size and they're supposed to be pretty sharp.

Go back to youtube Lindy

Not every D&D world is set in the Renaissance without guns (the generic fantasy world)

Plate armor didn't even exist until around the 14th century, you realize that there are so many other historical analogues for D&D to draw from where axes would be effective?

Reminder that there were cannons before full plate

Axes were commonly used. They are much more effective vs. mail than a sword. The sword's main advantage is that it's more convenient to carry around.

It combines the cutting power of a blade, with the weight and powerful swing of a hammer or mace.

Imagine how useful an axe would be for a cavalryman - the weight of the head and how much force you can put into a swing, combined with the speed of your horse, can give you a brutally powerful weapon. Sort of like how a one-handed flail would've been awkward for an infantryman, but would've worked wonders for cavalry.

Cavalry especially in the Middle ages used a lot of weapons that were top-heavy like axes, maces and clubs.

Chinese, around 3000-5000 years ago.

yeah, a spear or pole-arm would be best.

that's not how that works Bub. Just look at how a lacrosse Defense-men throw the ball, How his hand can move down the shaft and utilize that extra reach.

>warfare
>fun

>implying

>dude muh fullplate lmao
Full plate was only popular as armor for a period of about 300~400 years between the late 1300s and early 1700s. Warfare has been going on for 5000+ years.

That's what you get for being of a lower estate. Your superiors are naturally enjoying the fuck outta war.

Anything is shit compared to mobile pike squares. They decimated everything except firearms.

Sure they are. If they aren't fighting they are not actually in the war.

>14th century onwards
There's your problem by the 14th century the poorer soldiers were much more likely to rely on pikes or polearms while the aristocracy stuck with lances and blunt weapons. Sure sometimes axes were used, and swords were common but generally the preference was maces and swords.

Beyond that axes were a lot easier to come by than a sword. You own an axe for splitting wood? Bam you have a largely serviceable weapon.

>Axes are better than hammers on unarmed/lightly armored targets
Debatable. A mace or hammer to the head will kill an unarmoured man regardless. As for hitting elsewhere, a good hit with a mace or hammer will still shatter bones. Try fighting with a shattered arm, shoulder, or several broken ribs.

>We've got muskets and artillery! The enemy can't defeat us!
>Sir, look! They've got PIKE SQUARES

You'd think of the idea was so great, people would've been making use of pike squares since the beginning of warfare and still making use of them.

No you fucking idiot. Woodcutting axes make for terible weapons because of how unwieldy they are there is a reason why battle axes had thinner blades.

>>A mace or hammer to the head will kill an unarmoured man.
>Yeah, an axe won't, right?

>>Try fighting with a shattered arm, shoulder, or several broken ribs.
>Try figthing with a wound so deep it fucks your muscles up or no arms or legs at all

>not as versatile as a sword
lol good luck chopping fire wood with your sword
>not as good against armor as a warhammer in fact against plate it can do fuck all
what is spiky bit, yes the bit for putting holes in armour
inb4 b-but my nobility!
except in fantasy settings axes are regale as fuck and so were real life ones from 14th century onwards

...

I loved this comic, what was it called again?

As funny as that is, it was probably rare for peasants to ever have the morale to stand firm, let alone defeat a better armed enemy. You really only get that in a 'defending our homes and our families' scenario.

you're fucking retarded if you think you can pierce THROUGH armor with a spike that short holy shit Veeky Forums is full of legit downies

checkmate fuckboy.

You need some fresher material, OP.

Look back at the OP picture of an axe - that's a much larger spike than that obviously decorative axe.

Besides, even on actual picks, the spike wasn't usually that big. The only time you see huge picks are when they're used by horsemen.

but you're a complete retard

It's entirely possible to run a game with an appropriate tech level for the widespread use of axes as weapons.

Curb your autism.

Why do people always give the abilities of utility axes to battle axes? That's like giving the utility abilities of a machete to a sword or a craftsmen's hammer to a mace.

Because you can use a sword as a crude machete, and while the mace example is far-fetched, you could use a warhammer as a craftsmen's hammer. They're essentially the same as the tools, they just won't do as well being makeshift tools.

because axefags have no arguments as they know their weapon was shit

In any time before Napoleonic combat, axes were commonly used for battle. You cannot describe how all axes are useful because every type of axe has a different context. But we can factually see that axes did have a use and were used. End of thread.

hm, interesting, I once read quite a logical article describing why it's swords were pretty much shit and just a symbol of status as compared to an axe. more or less boiled down to.

>worse as chopping than axe
>sucks at stabbing, it's not a rapier after all
>axe can break through armour much easier than sword, and is much easier to make than war pick.
>axe can break bones even if cutting power doesn't penetrate chainmail or you hit flat, or whatever. sword can't.
>sword that's gone blunt is shit. axe that's gone blunt it a nice mace.
>axe-head hits with much greater force than sword-blade, due to mass distribution
>lighter and more versatile than mace or hammer
>more useful against unarmored enemies than mace or hammer
>needs less metal and is easier to make than sword or hammer

swords became versatile with advent of backswords, rapiers, scimitars... knight's sword was a massive piece of metal, you couldn't fence with it. nor could you with shitty iron or bronze swords of earlier ages. you need steel to make a good sword.

isn't machete an epitome of cutting sword? like rapier is an epitome of stabby sword?

google up battle hammers and stop spewing nonsense. yes, you could use sword, but battle hammer and crafting hammer are similar in name only.

and actual in all ages too!

There's a hitty end, isn't there? And it's not like every hammer is a two-handed heug monstrosity like in most fantasy depictions - real warhammers were actually fairly small. You could pound nails with that shit.

it's tiny. you cannot use it as proper carpenter's mallet or smithing hammer. you can pound nails with it, that's all. but you can do that with a rock or a sword hilt, or a plate gauntlet. it's not specifically a hammer job.

Well you could also get a bigger hammerhead and call that a warhammer, if you're okay with just going with the fantasy depiction.

>probably more that I can't think of right now
dildo
see also: the thick wooden shaft of you dads old ballpeen hammer

>Hastings
>Halberds

>What is a Housecarl

>What is a Dane Axe

Do some research.

>housecarl

a meme

don't know about any battle involving them

I said the battle, retard, Hastings.

And, by extension, Stamford Bridge, since they were Harold Saxon's personal bodygaurd/elite troops.

>elite bodyguard
>still got shitstomped

lmao shows how great vikings were

Do you even know what the Battle of Hastings was?

Harold Saxon was facing a war on two fronts from Harold Hardrada (the leader of the Vikings) in the North and William the Bastard of Normandy (the leader of the Normans) in the South.

The Vikings did get shitstomped, by the Saxons (the forces that were using the Housecarls) at Stamford Bridge.

One of the main reasons that Harold Saxon lost the Battle of Hastings is because he force marched his army a couple of hundred miles in two days to face William, as both invasions happened simultaneously. Harold took a risk to stop William from taking any more territory - probably a fatal mistake, but their loss at Hastings was mostly because of their fatigue from the previous battle and the forced march, not because of a lack of skill.

Though you probably don't care about any of that, do you OP? You just want to keep going HURR-DURR AXES R SHIT, don't you?

Axes were shit. Swords were god tier.

Axes did have a specific use.
The big difference between swords and axes is the center of gravity, an axe has all its mass near the point of impact, thus can deliver a more powerful slashing strike than a sword can, at the cost of being a bit unweildly. Conversely, a sword has it's mass balanced much more evenly, which makes it much easier to wield, making parries and counters much easier, comparatively.
Vikings used both swords and battleaxes, and they didn't use the axes because they were poor. Sword and shield is a much more defensive setup than axe and shield, but an axe user could effectively suppress and exhaust a sword user behind their shield through sheer aggression. Blocking strikes from an axe takes a lot more out of you than blocking strikes from a sword.

This is also where the iconography of Viking berserkers dual-wielding axes comes from, the idea that shields were for pussies and that they could drop it with an even more aggressive fighting style. Turns out shields aren't actually for pussies, and dual axes never got past meme status. Axe and shield though, that worked well enough for the Vikings that it saw reasonably widespread use.

Also probably because William was using new tactics against them they weren't prepared for. Cavalry was not widely in use then, not during a fight, just for transport.

Well Saxons are naturally terrible at war. Up until the Norman conquest their only real victories were against the Welsh and sometimes the Vikings.

Thanks for proving me right, faggot

Seljuks and Sassanid Persians did just that.

Pike square is nothing more than a tighter phalanx, so technically yes, they -have-.

Can you please kill yourself so we wont have another trash thread like this ever again?

speaking of berserkers they were always described as using either swords or spears so axes were still fucking garbage

>sometimes

A machete is little more than a really sharp falchion, really.

Also morale loss when a stray arrow took poor Harry through the eye.

Wow, a bunch of actual pirates couldn't fight organized armies. Color me surprised.
Also, fuck you, OP, this is like the ninth version of this thread.

Thats kind of my point, the viking berserkers were such a powerful icon that all kinds of bullshit memes sprouted out of em. I'm not saying what the actual berserkers did or did not do, I'm saying that their meme status exaggerated a lot of the more mainstream elements of the Viking militaries into absurdity.

Then why those pirates are shilled as great warriors?

Great warrior has very little to do with great army.

So they were only ''great'' against unarmed people?

>not as versatile as a sword

Axes were most common as a primary weapon in the early middle ages when large shields and mail armor were standard. An axe and shield is an extremely versatile combination - even more versatile than a sword in that era and context. They are heavy and robust enough to not just withstand constant collisions with enemy shields and helmets (where iron swords would be likely to bend), but also to damage or even break enemy shields. They can hook and pull enemy shields or limbs in ways that swords can't. They can bludgeon through mail and plate helmets in a way that a swords have more difficulty doing due to their weight distribution. If they have a fluke or backspike like in the one you posted, it can penetrate mail to devastating effect. They require less skill to make, less metal, require less maintenance, are less expensive, can be used in a pinch for utility tasks (though weapon axes and tool axes are very different and not interchangeable). Depending on how they're shaped, they can even be used as throwing weapons in a way swords can't (the francisca throwing axe was such a favoured weapon of the franks it was named after them).

Axes are extremely versatile and have a ton of advantages depending on the context.