|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Jan 5, 2017 19:30:33 GMT
What in your opinion is the more effective battle weapon, the sword or the axe ? No bows, spears or any other weapon, just the sword or axe. It's a tough one because they both have their advantages. An axe can be used to hook you opponents leg pulling it out from under him putting him to the ground where you can finish him off. There isn't many weapons that can turn a head into a canoe better than an axe, plus you can use it to chop wood and build a longship. The sword on the other hand is faster and more controllable.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 5, 2017 20:19:27 GMT
What in your opinion is the more effective battle weapon, the sword or the axe ? No bows, spears or any other weapon, just the sword or axe. It's a tough one because they both have their advantages. An axe can be used to hook you opponents leg pulling it out from under him putting him to the ground where you can finish him off. There isn't many weapons that can turn a head into a canoe better than an axe, plus you can use it to chop wood and build a longship. The sword on the other hand is faster and more controllable. You got into utility aspects towards the end of you post regarding chopping wood and building stuff. Everyday tool usage goes to the axe in a BIG way, though lots of swords (sword like objects) have short blades that can be used like an axe or camp knife, machete, bowie, etc...so exact definition of sword is important...as a 4' rapier or unsharpened small sword would be useless utility wise . There are a lot of axe/sword hybrid stuff out there (really cool stuff, if you ask me) that sort of do both (though not as efficiently as committed swords and axes doing what they do). There are different axes and swords, so the combat aspects very greatly. In a one on one hypothetical the sword wins because it is a committed fighting tool with just too many fundamental advantages. Point manipulation and tip speed would be difficult for the axe dude to deal with, and the long blade edge can slash and cut all along the swords length. Impact force goes to the axe, but how much force do you really need, as many swords can remove head from shoulders pretty easily. Many axes (and sometimes swords) get into polearm territory, so we would have to be careful in our definitions and comparisons. The main advantage I see with the sword is that so many of the longer ones can be used like short spears, so it is really point manipulation that is the "thrust" (pun intended) of the sword advantage argument. Also, overall recovery speed and manipulation is so much faster (both on offense and defense). What if you had small sword in one hand and hand axe in the other.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Jan 5, 2017 20:39:20 GMT
Okay, looking at my profile picture and the two pictures I posted lets say Viking sword vs Viking axe.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 5, 2017 20:50:22 GMT
Axe did exist a long time before swords, why invent and use swords, if the are not the better weapon in general? In a duel situation I think it depends on ...
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 5, 2017 21:01:51 GMT
What in your opinion is the more effective battle weapon, the sword or the axe ? No bows, spears or any other weapon, just the sword or axe. It's a tough one because they both have their advantages. An axe can be used to hook you opponents leg pulling it out from under him putting him to the ground where you can finish him off. There isn't many weapons that can turn a head into a canoe better than an axe, plus you can use it to chop wood and build a longship. The sword on the other hand is faster and more controllable. An axe made as a weapon is very different then an axe made as a tool. A splitting axe, used for utilitie is too heavy to be used as a weapon. A weapons axe, made for fighting is too light and thin in the blade (not cold steel stuff, but actual authentic fighting axes from the period you seem to be referencing) to be used for wood chopping or chopping down trees. I've grown up with both. As for swords VS axe? Sword. The ability to thrust with most swords, along with the easier ability to parry other weapons, as well as having two edges (aside from backswords and sabres) makes it a better choice for me. As far as hooking legs, the axe could be used for that, but that's a really easy thing to block with most swords. You also have to take into account the wooden shaft of the axe. As far as hooking a sword, while you could do that when they parry, you also open yourself up to thrusts or quick cuts when you do that, all they have to do is step back, cut, or thrust. Or step forward, grab the haft, and pommel you or just straight up punch you. If you use the head for the axe to hit them while you pull the sword, they have the opportunity to sidestep. All in all, I think the sword has more advantages. It may not have the same cutting potential an an axe, but it doesn't need it. If you're fighting armor that requires blunt force you won't be using an edged weapon to do so, and if you do then you'll more than likely have a rondel dagger at your side to get into he chinks. In an unarmed or lightly armored fight, it'll come down to the skill level of the wielder or the context of the fight itself.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Jan 5, 2017 23:12:04 GMT
UT OH not fair Hordan, sorry I don't know how to put the two dots above the O in your name but you sneaked a dagger into the fight. Actually most Vikings were farmers most of the year and only went raiding in the off season. So they would use their working axes until they could get their hands on proper fighting weapons. No doubt the chieftains took most of the booty for themselves. Yep Markusagain thrusting with an axe is not a good habit to get in but I'll bet an easy habit to get out of. If you live long enough.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 5, 2017 23:25:16 GMT
Fair enough, I hadn't read that you clarified it was only viking era. (That said, the dagger was mentioned not only for the sword, but for the axe as well) As far as most viking were farmers, that may be so, but why would they take their families work axe (only work axe, let's face it, if they were too poor to have a regular fighting axe made, then they were too poor to have more than once axe) out to go viking and maybe die? I'm not amad expert or even very well knowledgeable about the Viking era, but I'm family certain they had smiths, and I'm family certain that like today, work axes then were made to be very robust, and to have a massive amount of forward weight at the head.
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Jan 6, 2017 0:06:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 6, 2017 2:08:35 GMT
While you could use the shaping axe in that document, you could also use any of the metal things in that document as weapons. Would they be good weapons? No. The head on that particular axe is too thick, and I'm almost certain that the haft is also short, so it'd have a myriad of disadvantages against a sword, or fighting axe. Personally I also doubt that all the axes in that article are for shipping building, specifically the ones at the bottom of the page. They are very thin and very wide.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 6, 2017 2:09:42 GMT
Back to swords vs axes, and not working axes VS fighting axes?
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 6, 2017 2:20:31 GMT
I don't see how an axe can win against a sword unless it has a springy hard shaft of at least 1m length and the user holds the axe in a way in which the bit is used for close range attacks and the shaft is doing the hard work - the axe bit is a dangerous "pommel". Axe and shield against sword is something else. 2 axes against sword might increase the chances, but I really don't see axe as winning weapon against a sword. PS This is regarding a duel. In battle ,where you can attack anybody who's not necessary paying attention to you (or once you killed your direct opponent if you were "front seats" candidate) the chances are 50-50.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 6, 2017 2:25:42 GMT
Okay, looking at my profile picture and the two pictures I posted lets say Viking sword vs Viking axe. Ah, this narrows the gap considerably (in my opinion). For pure fighting, I think that particular sword still wins (for reasons stated earlier). Can chop with enough power (though not as powerfully as axe), wield the sword faster, and there is still way better stabbing ability. Axes were MUCH less expensive and difficult to acquire, and (as you noted) could be used for other tasks besides fighting.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 6, 2017 2:34:24 GMT
What in your opinion is the more effective battle weapon, the sword or the axe ? No bows, spears or any other weapon, just the sword or axe. It's a tough one because they both have their advantages. An axe can be used to hook you opponents leg pulling it out from under him putting him to the ground where you can finish him off. There isn't many weapons that can turn a head into a canoe better than an axe, plus you can use it to chop wood and build a longship. The sword on the other hand is faster and more controllable. An axe made as a weapon is very different then an axe made as a tool. A splitting axe, used for utilitie is too heavy to be used as a weapon. A weapons axe, made for fighting is too light and thin in the blade (not cold steel stuff, but actual authentic fighting axes from the period you seem to be referencing) to be used for wood chopping or chopping down trees. I've grown up with both. As for swords VS axe? Sword. The ability to thrust with most swords, along with the easier ability to parry other weapons, as well as having two edges (aside from backswords and sabres) makes it a better choice for me. As far as hooking legs, the axe could be used for that, but that's a really easy thing to block with most swords. You also have to take into account the wooden shaft of the axe. As far as hooking a sword, while you could do that when they parry, you also open yourself up to thrusts or quick cuts when you do that, all they have to do is step back, cut, or thrust. Or step forward, grab the haft, and pommel you or just straight up punch you. If you use the head for the axe to hit them while you pull the sword, they have the opportunity to sidestep. All in all, I think the sword has more advantages. It may not have the same cutting potential an an axe, but it doesn't need it. If you're fighting armor that requires blunt force you won't be using an edged weapon to do so, and if you do then you'll more than likely have a rondel dagger at your side to get into he chinks. In an unarmed or lightly armored fight, it'll come down to the skill level of the wielder or the context of the fight itself. Yeah, it's the quick cuts, slashes, push/pull cuts with the long double edge upon hands, fingers, wrists that would add up. Axe has lots of power in a small area, but there is too much over swing, imbalance. I was still thinking that the Viking weapons axe still had bush craft ability (cutting small branches for kindling, etc...) not cut down huge trees (think Paul Bunion style).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 6, 2017 2:53:20 GMT
While you could use the shaping axe in that document, you could also use any of the metal things in that document as weapons. Would they be good weapons? No. The head on that particular axe is too thick, and I'm almost certain that the haft is also short, so it'd have a myriad of disadvantages against a sword, or fighting axe. Personally I also doubt that all the axes in that article are for shipping building, specifically the ones at the bottom of the page. They are very thin and very wide. There is no doubt that the Vikings (like everyone, really) had task specific axe heads to do a particular job with more efficiency. I heard they only took the axe heads on the boats with them, and fashioned the handles on shore with more efficient woodworking tools (don't quote me, however ). Like you pointed out, as today, people have tools that overlap in usage. Some stuff that can do wood processing, can still work tactically, though you may suffer varying degrees of loss of speed, control, etc... I have Cold Steel Trail, Pipe, Rifleman's as well as CRKT Kangee and Chogan, not to mention the Viking hand axe. Maybe the lighter historical examples were better, but the examples I just mentioned would still work (perhaps marginally to poor, by comparison) in a pinch. All would still come up short against swords, but I wonder how many times Viking hordes attacked a fully equipped sword army head on, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 6, 2017 2:59:55 GMT
Back to swords vs axes, and not working axes VS fighting axes? Yes, that is a hard thing not to meander on (without specific explanation, which I believe you have done). The fighting axes should be assumed to be light with properly shaped and profiled heads (unless otherwise specified, as not all "working" axes are equal).
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 6, 2017 3:02:30 GMT
Swords of course, even (or especially?) in the Viking context. It's longer, tougher, has two dangerous sides, and is faster pound for pound. There's reason why swords were invented despite the presence of axes - they were extremely effective at what they did. Yeah you can hook a shield with an axe, but that close, you can already stab around or cut under the shield with a sword.
Now spear vs sword... that's a far closer matchup.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 6, 2017 3:12:28 GMT
Swords of course, even (or especially?) in the Viking context. It's longer, tougher, has two dangerous sides, and is faster pound for pound. There's reason why swords were invented despite the presence of axes - they were extremely effective at what they did. Yeah you can hook a shield with an axe, but that close, you can already stab around or cut under the shield with a sword. Now spear vs sword... that's a far closer matchup. With the spear winning (reach, tip speed, leverage), though if we are talking sword and shield vs spear...things get interesting. Never bring a sword to a polearm fight. I know, spears are lighter than polearms, but you get the picture (but what about spear vs polearm).
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,103
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 6, 2017 3:13:57 GMT
Always too close to call in any situation; each with disadvantages and advantages.
However, that said, MY opinion if it's a single handed sword and shield I'd give it a slight advantage over a long axe--but *without* a shield, sorry, I give the axe the nod. Single-handed swords of many eras, especially the Viking, can be far too limited in defense without an offhand means of protection. And people underestimate how quick and versatile the grip changes on a fighting axe can make it. (Including retaining its thrusting capability when closing the distance. There's a reason half-swording developed later.)
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,103
|
Post by LeMal on Jan 6, 2017 3:17:43 GMT
For the shorter axes, there's also cost and/or convenience of carry. I mean, there's a reason handguns are still around. An "inferior" weapon you actually have on you still beats the hell out of a "superior" weapon your adversary simply doesn't have on him.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 6, 2017 3:35:52 GMT
Yeah ok to be more specific, I meant all matchups with a shield. Viking swords are meant to be used with shields, so any matchup should also involve shields as they are too big a factor to ignore.
|
|