Axe, Sword or Mace, which would you fight with?

[Gueron]

Originally posted by Axxaer


They are great if you surprise your enemy and/or are fighting someone with similar or no weapons. Against somebody with a longsword they would stand little to no chance simply due to the reach difference, and a shield is generally better at stopping attacks than parrying with a short weapon. If you want to use two weapons and be able to strike and parry simultaneously, perhaps something like rapier/dagger rapier/rapier or rapier/short sword would work better. The main problem is that for any of these you have to be faster and more agile than your opponent because in brute force, a longsword/greatsword/battleaxe/mace/etc. is far superior to the smaller weapons such as rapiers and daggers. AFAIK tonfas and sais(pl?) are only used in martial arts and not against medievally armed/armoured opponents (perhaps your mace suggestion would be appropriate).

Hmm, shields are not used the way a lot of people envision them. They don't stop per se, they deflect. Try to block an axe, or mace with a shield directly and you'd likely end up with a broken arm.

Sais were modified specifically to handle swords. They evolved from the sai used to plant rice, thus a low caste would have access to them. Also, though they were not used generally against the European armored troops, sais were used against armored troops, the samurai wore armor.

Rapiers are not really all that effective against heavy weapons. The true age of the rapier is on the high sea, sure, they were decent against plate mail, but they were far better for fighting against unarmored men. Armor pretty much went out with mass produced gunpowder, it didn't generally help against cannons, or heavier arms, and really wasn't all that effective against the heavier crossbows.

Still, what you have in Civilization are tokens. The sprites represent several forces of a similar type, like a squad, rather than the individual. So what we see are units of men against units of men, and in that type of combat, there are lots of different things that are occuring during that combat.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Gueron
Hmm, shields are not used the way a lot of people envision them. They don't stop per se, they deflect. Try to block an axe, or mace with a shield directly and you'd likely end up with a broken arm.

Sais were modified specifically to handle swords. They evolved from the sai used to plant rice, thus a low caste would have access to them. Also, though they were not used generally against the European armored troops, sais were used against armored troops, the samurai wore armor.

Rapiers are not really all that effective against heavy weapons. The true age of the rapier is on the high sea, sure, they were decent against plate mail, but they were far better for fighting against unarmored men. Armor pretty much went out with mass produced gunpowder, it didn't generally help against cannons, or heavier arms, and really wasn't all that effective against the heavier crossbows.

Still, what you have in Civilization are tokens. The sprites represent several forces of a similar type, like a squad, rather than the individual. So what we see are units of men against units of men, and in that type of combat, there are lots of different things that are occuring during that combat.

I know how shields are used, and I also know that I would rather try and block a mace or axe with a shield than parry it with a sai. A broken arm is better than no arm in my books.

AFAIK, whilst samurai were indeed armoured, their style of combat focused much more on speed, agility and accuracy, whereas medieval combat was more about the strength of the blows and armour and partly accuracy.

[Gueron]

Originally posted by Axxaer


... I would rather try and block a mace or axe with a shield than parry it with a sai. A broken arm is better than no arm in my books.

I tend to agree. A sai is no match for an axe or a mace, it's design specifically changed to handle swords.

A broken arm, though, is likely to lead to death. First the shock, then, even if the person wins, medical technology was not that great.

Understand, I'm not trying to disagree, or even argue. I prefer the axe, even though a sword tends to be more elegant. I often see overly-romantic ideals of medieval weapons and armour among gamers, and was pointing out that it wasn't really as cut and dried as any believe. Still, being a gamer myself, and an avid reader, I understand those ideals.

The European sword was not really that elegant, nor actually that sharp (according mainly to the history I've been able to read/watch, since I've never had direct access to test the sharpness of the weapons myself). Shields are a lot more difficult to use than many people think. It's not a matter of putting the shield up between you and a blow, it actually requres some aptitude.

[Axxaer]

Oh yeah... I kind of forgot about the lack of medical technology to fix a broken arm.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Gueron
A broken arm, though, is likely to lead to death. First the shock, then, even if the person wins, medical technology was not that great.

I disagree. You can splint a broken arm. And if you're a warrior or soldier, you're tough. I mean, we're not talking a belly wound here (now that would be fatal).

The problem would be if you had a compound fracture, which would be harder to set, so you'd face varying degrees of loss of use. Or if the bone were really splintered causing major blood vessel damage, then you'd probably lose some of the arm (amputation following gangrene infection).

[Badtz Maru]

Wow, this thread is full of myths about swords that need to be corrected.

1. Swords were not heavy. Nearly all were in the 2-5 lb. range. There were a few two handed swords that weighed 6-7 lbs., and outside of Europe some ceremonial blades that weighed more than that, but those were extremely rare.

Oddly, many medieval historians have perpetuated this myth, some claiming weapons weighed as much as 40 pounds! I expect that kind of B.S. from the guy at Medieval Times (where I overheard someone selling swords claim a claymore weighed 40 lbs. instead of the app. 4.5 lbs. they usually weigh), but there's real academics spreading this false meme.

2. Swords were sharp. I have no idea where the idea that medieval European swords were blunt and used for bludgeoning came from, maybe Japanophiles who are always trying to spread the idea that Eastern weapons were superior. If you were going to bludgeon someone with a blunt weapon, why use a lightweight strip of metal with it's weight distributed evenly along it's length? They had a weapon for bludgeoning that's already been mentioned in this thread. Swords were made for slashing or stabbing. Great care was taken to maintain a sharp edge, and swordsmen tried to avoid hitting their blade against other blades or against metal armor so as to avoid dulling it.

The sword was a light, fast cutting weapon that was intended to be used against unarmored or lightly armored fighters, or against the unarmored portions of other armored fighters.

3. In a fight between two fighters of roughly equal training, one armed with a sword and the other with a spear, the spear wielder will almost always win. In spear vs. sword martial arts competitions, the sword wielder will usually be at least a rank higher in his training than the spear wielder to make the fight a little more fair. A skilled spear user can keep the sword wielder outside of the sword's effective range, and the long hardwood shaft is usually very effective at blocking a swords blows.

In real warfare, usually sword wielders were a lot more highly trained than the spearmen, and so your typical medieval European swordsman vs. your typical medieval European spearmen would probably have a good chance, but that's because only trained warriors used swords, while spears were usually used by soldiers with much less training. In Japan there were many skilled warriors who specialized with spears and they were very deadly. One of Miyamoto Musashi's most difficult duels was against a skilled spear wielder.

[Badtz Maru]

Correction to myself: I had thought that all the oversized ceremonial blades I had read about were Asian in origin, but I found mention of some European ones as well - http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

"There were also huge two-handed blades known as "bearing-swords" or "parade-swords" (Paratschwert), weighing up to 10 or even 15 pounds and which were intended only for carrying in ceremonial processions and parades."

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That's a big sword ...

The blade alone is 52". It would be hard for an axeman or maceman to get close enough to land a blow. He must have been a big guy.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Shaka II
He must have been a big guy.

Either that, or he had a small penis.

[Yosho]

In general, sword and shield was probably the most effective combination for standard fighting. However, axe was actually rather effective against sword and shield, as a strong axe-man could pretty easily put the axe both through the shield and through the arm of the man holding it.

[EternalSpark]

Durandal. Either the sword, or the AI.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Either that, or he had a small penis.

I doubt that swordsmen back then carried more sword than they could handle or they wouldn't have lasted long in battle.

[Lord Avalon]

Vampiric Sword of Earthquakes
Combat V
Bombard III
City Raider III

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru

1. Swords were not heavy. Nearly all were in the 2-5 lb. range.

Having tried to actually wield a 2kg blade with the centre of mass a good way away from my hand, I disagree with the notion that swords are not heavy.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru In spear vs. sword martial arts competitions, the sword wielder will usually be at least a rank higher in his training than the spear wielder to make the fight a little more fair. A skilled spear user can keep the sword wielder outside of the sword's effective range, and the long hardwood shaft is usually very effective at blocking a swords blows.
...
In Japan there were many skilled warriors who specialized with spears and they were very deadly. One of Miyamoto Musashi's most difficult duels was against a skilled spear wielder.

That's true, but you're talking about Eastern weapons here. One big difference is that they didn't use shields.

In a spearman vs. a sword and shield fighter, the shield makes it much easier for the swordsman to get inside the spearman's longer range. That makes all the difference.