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

[Last Conformist]

I suppose the Romans had the right idea - spears and swords.

Well, actually that combo is very common, at least in European history. The equipment of a Germanic chieftain would include a sword, an axe, and a few spears.

[proviisori]

I would use katana and wakizashi!

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I suppose the Romans had the right idea - spears and swords.

The Roman pila were more javelins than spears. They were intended for throwing, and the long iron head was thin, such that if it got embedded in a shield, it would bend, making the shield useless.

[Last Conformist]

So was Achilles's spear, that johnmc refered to.

[Shaka II]

A sword, if I get to have this one.

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/sword.htm

[LordShiva]

Or the axe that the Germanic chieftain uses in the battle scene in Gladiator.

[Last Conformist]

That's a big sword ...

[Fitz]

Is my opponent wearing armor? If so, I want a mace with a medium length handle. Otherwise, give me a sword with a somewhat sharp edge.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Flamer(fin)
I would use katana and wakizashi!

I just thought this might be interesting:

It is a commonly-encountered article of faith that katanas are intrinsically superior to European swords. This belief is frequently bolstered by roleplaying games that assign superior statistics to katanas, and also by many movies. However, these claims are largely based on misunderstandings about the manufacture and role of European swords, and comparing the schools on their worst examples instead of their best.

Because Japan was an iron-poor society, making a sword was an inherently expensive undertaking; the supply of swords was limited, and so it was in the smiths' interest to make the most of the materials they could afford. Europe also had superlative swordsmiths; Toledo steel swords from Spain are one example of legendary quality swords from outside Japan. However, the greater availability of iron made it practical to produce cheap, low-quality weapons in large quantities. Where Europeans had the choice between expensive good swords and cheap bad swords, Japanese had the choice between expensive swords, somewhat less expensive swords, or none at all.

Some European swords were also designed for different modes of combat. The katana's sharpness makes it an excellent cutting weapon. Katana are capable of damaging armor to a degree and even today Shinkendo masters perform the ancient helmet cutting ceremony. In this light, the different characteristics of certain European swords are due less to the limitations of their makers than to the requirements of their use. Attempting to establish the superiority of the one weapon over the other is ultimately meaningless without first defining the circumstances in which they are to be compared.

At the same time, many European sword types from the very beginning of the history of the sword, through the medieval period and the renaissance to the 20th century were designed for the same combat modes as Japanese ones, fighting against lightly-armored or unarmored infantry. Styles that relied on a single longsword for both offense and defense were well known - see e.g. Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch[2] - and disparities in weight have been greatly exaggerated; both longswords and katanas typically weighed between 1.0 and 1.5 kilograms (2-3 pounds).

[Lord Avalon]

There was also Damascus Steel.

[Tokyo Sexwale]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

... such that if it got embedded in a shield, it would bend, making the shield useless.

You mean making the spear useless? So they couldn't throw it back at ya. Although, must be a btch trying to block with a spear in your shield, bent or not bent.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Tokyo Sexwale
You mean making the spear useless? So they couldn't throw it back at ya. Although, must be a btch trying to block with a spear in your shield, bent or not bent.

Well, yes, that would make the pilum useless as well. But more important is it sticking in the shield, so that it's harder to protect against the next volley.

[One_more_turn]

Macedonian Phalanx were the ultimate spearmen, until the Legionary got close and disembowelled them.

Middle Age Pikemen were much more versatile than the old Phalanx, and if mixed up with Musketmen, ruled for centuries until field cannons mowed them down like grass.

[One_more_turn]

I personally prefer swords. You can stab, slash, and even blunt with swords if they are heavy enough. Both the axe and the mace are no good if the enemy gets too close.

[popejubal]

I'd choose axe.

Because then I get to get some work done when I'm not busy fighting off Barbarian Archers.

Let's get chopping, boys!