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

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Tonfas and sais were used by ninjas against samurai

Did they win?

I was thinking about these in European terms, but I'm sure, as you said, they would have been very effective in Oriental use and by/vs the right people.

Although the rapier and dagger weren't designed to work as a pair per se, this pair was developed early and very popular. See first paragraph of http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/di_g...pierDagger.htm

[Hauptman]

The dagger wasnt designed for pair use, or used really, You are thinking of the Main Guache (sp?). A dagger was too simple to use for parrying, you'd get yer fingers chopped off if you tried.


Since I seem to have a roomful a different types of swords, I think that clinches it for me but...

When I was a wee tike I loved mace wielders in D&D.

As I got a little bit older and a little less dorky, all my main computer characters where axe weilding dwarves!

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Hauptman
The dagger wasnt designed for pair use, or used really, You are thinking of the Main Guache (sp?). A dagger was too simple to use for parrying, you'd get yer fingers chopped off if you tried.

A Main-Gauche is a dagger!

http://members.aol.com/dargolyt/TheForge/gauche.htm

http://www.silvermane.com/Main%20Gauche.html

http://www.woodenweapons.com/main_gaucheng.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-gauche

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Main-gauche

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Axxaer

A Main-Gauche is a dagger!

Yes, but a specialized one with large hilt/handguard for parrying.

[Axxaer]

Yes, but it's just easier to say dagger than Main-Gauche.

[Hauptman]

Oh yeh another topic reminds me why maces became more common... You could make a mace from iron, or even wood. a sword was expensive STEEL.

Not as much "ease of use" as it is "ease of manufacture"

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Hauptman
Oh yeh another topic reminds me why maces became more common... You could make a mace from iron, or even wood. a sword was expensive STEEL.

Not as much "ease of use" as it is "ease of manufacture"

There were iron swords, even bronze. Or wood, like the bokken, or wood with sharp stuff (obsidian, for example) embedded in it.

[Hauptman]

Yes there were, they where however, "short" swords. Like the gladius or spatha. No where near the length achieved with steel longswords and katanas. And once armor became the norm no longer effective. Hence using iron, bronze, and wood to make cudgels and maces.


Wikipedia "The gladius was crafted from soft iron and the exterior was carburized using coal dust on the face of the anvil. This was necessary because the soft iron was not hard enough to have taken an edge before the carbon of the coal powder was added to the exterior of the blade."

[Urban Ranger]

My medieval weapon of choice against some heavily armoured foe is the repeating crossbow at 300 years.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My medieval weapon of choice against some heavily armoured foe is the repeating crossbow at 300 years.

I'd like to see you actually hit someone with one. They were renowned for their poor range and accuracy. All in all a pretty cool weapon otherwise though

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Axxaer
I'd like to see you actually hit someone with one. They were renowned for their poor range and accuracy. All in all a pretty cool weapon otherwise though

Even if I can't hit the broad side of a barn the pure deterrent value should scare the other side off

I read it somewhere else on these forums that it has a very good range and accuracy.

[Axxaer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

The chu-ko-nu, however, had neither the power nor accuracy of a common crossbow due to operational reasons.

AFAIK the cho-ko-nu was fairly typical of most repeating crossbows.

[johnmcd]

I read a fair bit of iron age literature, and pretty much unfailingly swords are a badge of honour, but when it comes to actually fighting it's the axe that is reached for. Swords seem to shatter and lack both the blugdenoning ability of the axe and compromise the dexterity of the user.

That said, all three pale in useage to the spear which is unfailing the weapon of first choice from bronze age Greece, through iron age Rome, into the mass pike ranks of medieval Europe and finally the bayonet of the gunpowder age.

[Last Conformist]

The CivIV macemen are weird, starting with the fact they wield flails, not what's generally meant by the word "mace" (viz. a club with a stone or metal head). The should've put in a more typical late-medieval infantryman instead, like a halberdier.


The spear is an excellent mass weapon - cheap to make and very effective when used by many men tightly packed. It's less useful in one-to-one combat, particularly the longer variants (pikes, sarissae, etc). If we're talking about personal combat, I'd rather have a sword and shield.

[johnmcd]

I take your point about the sword and shield, but if you read descriptions of battles and what have you, everyone likes to start by throwing a spear, from Achilles onwards, everyone wants to decide the first fight before getting anywhere near sword range. That's true for all times, the great pike blocks of the middle ages and the phalanxs of ancient times were again ways of deciding the battle before closing.

Once battle is met, I think I'd have to go with something nice and low skill like an axe.