Sword -vs- Axe -vs- Mace (-vs- Polearm?)
<div class="IPBDescription">Why use whatcha usin'?</div>Talking on World of Warcraft, and we're all 'weapons nubs' (ie: It looks cool, it has to be good!) kind of thing. But there was a particular discussion where we can't reason why it would be better to use one weapon over the other. We thought the axe would be the best, because it delivers the biggest payload, but the sword is more aerodynamic than the axe, and you can't thrust with the axe.
So, what are the pros and cons to each weapon type? O_o
So, what are the pros and cons to each weapon type? O_o
Comments
why not ask this question on an actual WoW forum where you might get better answers? >.>
/rant WoW is the most care bear of MMO games, its right next to everquest when it comes to care bareness. Its so retarded you don't lose gained exp in pvp during a pvp death, etc. what is the point of pvp if there are no penalties for losing? Someone please answer that question. rawerrrrr
Lineage 2 ftw
Because I'm talking about real life and not WoW. =P
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o_O now im confused lol
meh, real life sucks anyway. =O
in that case an axe all the way, its more manly i guess.. a mace is something a tard would run around with and swords are wayyy to comon ;O
axe is a 1blow kill weapon err or 1blow entire arm or leg gone weapon.
But this is probably just me and my 2 handed sword fetish <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Axes are very damageing when they hit and one handed ones can be thrown, fast, short ranged.
Polearms are great to keep enemies at distance, especially when used by many in a mass to confuse, can be thrown to deliver good damage. Weakness, hard to use in confined space/really close quarters.
Most efficient would be roman shortswords, their fast,rapid,durable,can be used to thrust and swing, capable of fending of attacks. Their only weakness would be against heavely armored knights and long ranged polearms/spears, but as you often have a shield with 1 handed weapons it may be excluded.
Sure, you're fugged if someone gets too close to you obviously, but when you can lop off heads at 10 feet, Wa-hey! Also, pull a Mel Gibson and dive under a charging horse with it ala Patriot. Can't do that with a sword! Not to mention it's far manlier than an Axe.
Sword - <a href="http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK002.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK002.jpg</a>
Puny and common.
Mace - <a href="http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK016.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK016.jpg</a>
Lol, just lol.
Axe - <a href="http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK020.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK020.jpg</a>
Manly, but not my style.
Polearm - <a href="http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK005.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/MK005.jpg</a>
Sold!
Of course, a lightsaber beats them all, hands down.
Edit: TheSavior, that's totally a halberd. A polearm is for poking.
Eh, whatever. Halberds win anyway.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Doppelhander.jpeg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Battle_of_Kappel_detail.jpg/200px-Battle_of_Kappel_detail.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
"1548 depiction of a Zweihänder used against pikes in the Battle of Kappel"
Zweihander cuts your puny wooden shaft weapons.
<a href="http://therionarms.com/reenact/com348.html" target="_blank">Moar pics</a>
Swords are probably the easiest to hit with - seeing the entire lenght of the blade is much greater than on a mace or an axe. And (thinking of a 1-handed sword here), probably faster and easier to swing around(though, this might be typical fantasy stereotypes coming through there :X). And it being sharp means that even a relatively light hit can still do some damage - if nothing else then through pain and an open wound which could be infected after battle :S
I'd say axes are a kind of middle ground between a mace and a sword, sharp like the sword, but has some of the same force as the mace has - you do after all hit him with a smaller blade - that is thicker and heavier too.. That said, the small blade probably makes it a wee bit harder to hit - the mace would have the same "problem" :S.
Polearms (and spears too) are <3 against horses, it roughly makes it impossible to charge at the guy if he's ready, as the polearm will reach you before you on the horse will get on the side of him (which is where you can strike him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). Though a polearm, as someone already said, would suck in enclosed spaces D: - well at least if you're not prepared, if you are on a relatively slim hallway I guess you could hold it horizontically and make trusts with it :S
my two cents atm :X
Those Silly englishmen are often mountet as they try to flank my norwegian party. Allways bring 3 ppl with polearms to get the Englishmen and the British off their horses.
Personally I fight at the front with two small balanced axes. They really are effective against the slow claymore wielding ones.
Recently the Spanish have begun to use a more ranged tactics trough. This of course forces me to use shields and even sometimes a frail to get around the shields of those Spanish knights to reach the archers.
The Frail really is a incredible weapon against those lightly armed men with huge shields. It should be included into this topic.
My favorite is and stays: The Dual Axes, of course a well balanced claymore is easy to deal with and quite deadly. I haven't used it in Real combat yet trough. (A claymore is a pretty big Two-handed sword if you didn't know)
EDIT: Maces are total crap and shouldn't be used by anyone. They have short range and doesn't really do that much damage. Go for the axe)
Also, I believe a polearm is any weapon on a pole. that can include spears, javelins, pikes, halberds, war hammers, what have you.
But seriously. In the middle ages, all armor was focused around not being cut. This was because in the middle ages there was no knowledge of germs. If you got a bruise (even if it was due to damage in your platemail) you would almost certainly live to fight another day. If you got cut by a sword that hadn't been cleaned and was covered in other people's blood, even if you got the wound "cleaned" there was a good chance you would be killed by the secondary infection.
Platemail is effective aginst blunt force. While you could disorient someone with platemail by striking them hard enough, you would have serious trouble putting a dent in the mail. This was forged iron. However, platemail was vulnurable to piercing force on a single point. This is why plate armor, though very popular in the middle ages, is no longer used aginst firearms. Similarly, there was a way commonly used to kill plated knights. It involved getting the knight off his horse (and if possible) onto his back. This severly hampered his mobility and ability to fight back. Then, using a dagger, you would either punch through his armor in a thin spot, or stab him between the points in his armor. Even if you didn't kill him, the fact that he now had an open wound, in unsanitary armor while he was stuck on his back in the hot sun generally assured his eventual death.
Archers were also very effective aginst knights due to the piercing properties of their projectiles. Again, getting shot with an arrow tended to cause infection, and while it was sometimes possible to stave off infection, most times it just wasn't possible.
Chainmail, other the other hand, was very vulnurable to blunt force. It was possible with a strong blow to drive the chain links through the padding and into the flesh, which could again cause a nasty infection. Also, since chain mail coifs did not protect the head and neck from being displaced due to blunt force, it was much more effective in that respect instead of a sword. On plated knights, however, it didn't work as well. The helm was attached to the body armor. Still, if the helm was attached with leather straps, it was easier to break them then the plate armor!
They took all sorts of weapons and handed them to martial arts experts for use on dummies with a bunch of sensors attached to them. They tested a bo staff, a nunchuk, a 3 piece staff(sort of a longer nunchuk with a third attachment), a spear, shurikens, and a katana. If I recall correctly, they determined that overall the best possible weapon for use in a variety of combat situations was a katana, but I'm not entirely sure.
Could probably find it on Google video, but I'm teh lazy.
<b>Edit:</b> Actually, I'm not quite that lazy, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk0bws-KaDE&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">here</a> you go.
Can't imagin why it's not a legendary weapon in WoW
This Katana wannabee fails miserably:
<a href="http://www.thottbot.com/?i=56892" target="_blank">http://www.thottbot.com/?i=56892</a>
An axe could be shethed (don't know the correct word, to tired to look it up) by your side. It all depends on the size of the axe.
Axe or sword i guess.
you sure about that Redford?
I remember that the main point of alot of the large swords in the ages of plate armour was to crush it (thus turnign the armour into a sharp edge inside) and not to attempt to pierce it. Also, I thought most bows were not capable of piercing plate armour (It would take quite abit of poundage to go through steel, I know horse bows dont' cary that. I admit I am not all that sure about the existance of heavier draw bows at that time, I thoguht the entire english longbow vs french knights thing was really just a legend)
I know chainmail does squat agianst blunt force, but it does not do much against a piecing attack (arrow, blot, or trust of a pointed weapon) either. However it is wonderful against slashing lacerations (with out being nearly as heavy as other types of armour).
That all being said and done, my vote compleatly depends on situation.
For the most part I would stick with 2 swords or daggers (or some sort of combination). Rather versatile, light weight, you can block with them, find holes in most types of armour, etc etc. Ofcourse, it is harder to get through heavy armour, you can't slash chainmail (though thrusts work well), and it is hard as hell to block sometihng that weighs as much as a mace/morningstar/haldbred (time to DODGE!). Also, this is what I have been trained in.
However a polearm is ALWAYS a wonderful tool if you know how to use it, heck it doesn't even have to be anytihng more then a staff (though putting a blade on it is nice). Having reach over your oponent is ALWAYS a good thing, and even if they close you can use a staff in close if you know what you are doing. The problem being is that if you give some one a woden stick with a poitn on it the only way they tihnk they can e dangerous is if they keep the metal bit in the other guy.
I know is ounds rather fantastical, but it is very effective (it is much easier to block and strike with 2 weapons then with a weapon and a shield)
The best melee weapons in the world is and shall always be the Katana.
Can't imagin why it's not a legendary weapon in WoW
This Katana wannabee fails miserably:
<a href="http://www.thottbot.com/?i=56892" target="_blank">http://www.thottbot.com/?i=56892</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Katanas are overated, and a lot of their prowess is based on movies and popular culture.
If I was suddenly thrust into a magical fantasy world and had to choose my weapons I'd try to learn dual-wielding swords or, failing that, daggers. You never know where you're going to end up fighting and if you're clever you can use the environment to your advantage; get a 2h weapon user in a tight corridor and they're in trouble. However polearms in those situations would be lethal (the poking ones that is, I'm pretty sure halberds are part of the polearm family too though).
Course, my main reason for the choice of weapons is down almost entirely to practicality. Think about it, seriously. You're going to be lugging this weapon/weapons around with you most of the time and if someone suddenly comes after you in an inn or whatever it's preferably something you'll be able to draw fast, so anything you'd have to strap on your back or carry about in your hands isn't really favourable. It's not like you can just leave a polearm lying to hand on the table and still have room for your meal, not to mention it'd likely annoy your friends :p
On the side I'd probably try and pick up some archery or, if available, magic as range is always a good thing :3
<b>edit:</b> just to note that even without all that practicality and stuff I'd still avoid using axes or bludgeoning implements as I just feel they're too primitive for my tastes... I much prefer the style and grace of an edged weapon, not to mention it takes less brute force to use and still do damage.
Comedy factoid. So successful, in fact, that at one point the Vatican outlawed them as 'heretical weapons' and then gave 'special dispensation' to their own forces to use them (when the Vatican still had it's own military, this is) Bearing in mind that at this point, disobeying the Vatican meant excommunication, and excommunication basically meant Spain, England & France turned up a week later & took everything you owned 'legally'.
If it has to be melee, despite my misgivings over their realistic effectiveness, and the amount of movie/sci-fi influences that have resulted in stainless steel crappy ones popping up all over the place, well, I did <a href="http://www.zen36316.zen.co.uk/Random/sching.jpg" target="_blank">import</a> one for a reason, didn't I? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
But for pure effectiveness, I'll take the Crossbow.
EDIT: To meet Haze's question of those 4? Swords. Easy to produce, ludicriously effective and used extensively for a reason, you know. Several million stabbings can't all be wrong.
- Shockwave
For true supremacy you generally just use a bunch of archers; but that can be ineffective if you don't have the arrows, trained archers (crossbowmen tend to be easier to train than someone who actually does something).
Generally Axes were used by societies that didn't have well-developed smithing practices and couldn't afford to make swords; but axes were very effective at cleaving wooden shields apart. Maces are similar to swords, but were more often used by clergy in periods that the church decreed that a clergyman couldn't draw blood (...so no sharp points). Morning stars/flails are far more rare, and - much like axes - were probably used in a support/intimidation role more than an actual intended combat role. Franks would often use axes as a throwing weapon, along with some earlier Germanic tribes. They were also fairly common with Vikings, who tended to carry a sword/mace/axe and a thin wooden shield.
Unlike WoW, if you were a real Medieval soldier it'd be doubtful if you'd only have one weapon (heck, almost everyone in medieval Europe carried around a short dagger for common uses). And unless you've got platemail you're probably going to be carrying a shield for your own safety. You'd use a polearm or a weapon with a longer reach until it broke (lances, pikes, halberd, spears and the like had long wooden shafts) - even long swords were prone to breaking (generally the steel making process had to form a balance between brittle and sharp and malleable and dull).
Usually attacks would be aimed at weak points in the armor; after the initial main charge or breakage of long-reach weapons (which, coupled with the speed of an initial charge, could easily puncture armor and shields) soldiers would resort to a back up weapon. Mainy catalogued injuries focus on the upper legs/thighs and the neck and head, where penetration and injury were easiest to achieve (I do have a bunch of notes somewhere if you want me to drag out medical statistics, otherwise this is all from my potentially irred memory). Usually people (even lower-class knights) could only afford a cuirass and possibly a helmet, leaving their arms, neck and legs exposed.
So spear+sword/mace with a shield, I guess. There's plenty of times that European armies were beaten by non-European armies (...and European armies) you usually you've got to take other things into account, like terrain and weather. Even if you've got 1000 archers it's not going to really help you if you're ambushed in the woods. I recommend reading <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetius" target="_blank">Vegetius</a>'s book De Re Militari, which is inaccurate (since Vegetius was neither a soldier, nor a historian), but is the basis of many medieval military leaders' tactics and strategies (...until you get to the naval stuff). It was one of the most widely printed and read military books up until the French Revolution.
[edit] and Xyth, 5 feet long is not too long for a polearm (some swords could have blades 3-4 feet long). Plus once you get to a certain reach it's going to be extremely difficult to swing a polearm around, since it has to be made out of a sturdy wood. They were generally used for thrusting and stabbing, not swining. Staves were not especially common on the battlefield in the middle ages, which seems to be what you're describing. Hitting someone with a stick isn't going to keep you alive very long when other people have 20 pound clubs and sharp edges. Also, it wasn't possible to make weapons out of Aluminum in the middle ages, so your staff would likely be cut apart or shattered when you tried to block with it - unless you're talking about nowadays, when someone would just shoot you instead <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" /> [/edit]