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

[potoroo]

One question that hasn't really been asked is whether the weapon of choice is for individual combat or for use as part of a unit. The key criteria here is how much space a weapon requires for it to be used effectively. A long-handled axe or long sword means the guy standing next to you has to be further away or you'll either hit him or be unable to use your weapon effectively. This was one important reason the Romans used the gladius (short sword). The enemy's charge was always met with a pilum volley to disrupt them and if it happened that a pilum stuck in a shield (it had a barbed head as well as the deliberately weakened soft iron neck), having this heavy object dragging it down rendered it useless and often it had to be abandoned. The legionairries then closed with the gladius. Since their enemies were typically lightly armoured or not at all the gladius was used as a stabbing weapon, the main target areas being the groin, thigh or belly. This meant that the legionairries could stand closer together than say the Celts or the Germannic tribes, who favoured long swords, the result being the Romans effectively had an average of 1.5 men per unit space to their enemy's 1. Add in strong unit discipline and the Romans usually had to do something really stupid to get beaten.

On the question of spears versus swords, it is interesting that note that while a Roman legion fought in three ranks, only the first two had pila. The rear rank had spears that were not thrown, but in the event the front ranks were being beaten they could retire behind this rank and the spearmen would cover the unit's retreat. So, while we tend to think of legionairries as being primarily short-swordsmen, in the worst-case scenario the Romans themselves relied on the spear.

Having said that, it is also interesting to note that the famous Saxon long-handled axe was a fearsome weapon, capable of taking out mounted units as well as infantry. During the Battle of Hastings the Norman cavalry was unable to break the Saxon shield wall and suffered heavy casualties to their axemen. To cut a long story short the Norman victory came about when the Saxons lost their unit discipline and, thinking the Normans beaten, some of them charged down from the ridge they'd been defending. The Normans then exploited the gaps caused and the rest is history.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by potoroo
... if it happened that a pilum stuck in a shield (it had a barbed head as well as the deliberately weakened soft iron neck), having this heavy object dragging it down rendered it useless and often it had to be abandoned. ...

I don't think "deliberately weakened" is accurate - the shank was just soft iron and narrow, so unable to support the weight of the wooden shaft if it got stuck in a shield, so it would bend.

[Gherald]

With my current training (null) I would want a one-handed mace and a medium shield (but large and thick enough to have a good chance at blocking arrows if it's that kind of fight).

As a backup I would want a pointed, two-sided dagger.

But if I were to actually train with such a weapon, a katana/longsword would be the obvious choice, but perhaps as a backup to a pike.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Axxaer
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.

You usually don't parry a large, heavy weapon with a sai. You deflect with it.

[Jerx]

The issue is decided by:
1. How armored is your foe?
2. What are you trained to use effectively?

I am a fencer trained in both light and heavier blades (although less so in the latter). Light blades like a rapier are not much good against heavy armor, unlike heavy blades and the mace (the axe is generally effective against anything it can hit, but is slow). Light blades excel against light/ unarmored foes. I would chose based on these criteria.

The katana was a superior sword, but Japanese lamellar/laminated armor was NOT the equivalent of European field plate.

[unamablebuiler]

swords are heavily dependent on metallyurgy to get the long swords and such as the raiper, cutllass, longsword, katana becuase they need hardness and a high resistence to shearing and tensile strength. The best steels available in the middages for this are be Damascus steel, laminated steel (folding 2 different steels or metals together), and the metal nitrided steels that the vivkings used. The vikings once they forged their blades urinated on the blade. the urea in urine then bonded to the iron to give a VERY hard. Metal nitrides are norw commonly used as abrasives and cutting tool and are not much softer than diamond . the vivkings probably didnot know this they just knew that the results were better swords.
The metallurgy of medieval eroupe probably wasnt up to the task to make long thin blades until the 13th or
14 centuries. Eroupe was just coming out of the dark ages at that time and had limited skill in this area. there were probably exceptional blades being made at this time its just that people knew the result of a particular method and tended to stick to it unless something much better came along. Ther was also pressure to keep refining sword design and metallurgy though thescience of metallurgy was as much trial and error as anything else until the last 50 years or so.

The result was that we have a variety of blades for one job, killing people and properly used most swords would be about as good as any other sword IMO. against armoured foes they would either be heavy like 2 handed swords or would go for the joints in the armour typically shoulder and hip.

Axes depend less on the metallurgy being bigger and heavier could reasonably cut through armour... most eroupean medieval troops were lightly armoured only knights and professional troops had plate armour or metal mail armour. again a variety of weapon shapes and sizes to deal with different foes.

maces aimed at breaking bones and imobilisind or incapacitaing someone to make the task of killing easier. metallurgy is unimportant here

spears, pikes and halberds went down a path of keep your enemy further away that his reach or to cut down charging cavalry or knights

cross bows were single shot weapons mostly used for assasinations or against heavily armoured troops. Crossbows cold puch holes in plate mail but took 5 min before they could fire a second shot. Long bows were used as suppressing fire to hurt unprotected troops. While recurve bows or horse bows were used as short range weapons mostly. All bows required a second weapn for back up.

Many weapons for doing the same job ... killing people.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You usually don't parry a large, heavy weapon with a sai. You deflect with it.

Doesn't parry = deflect?

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Doesn't parry = deflect?

It is according to trusty ol' Microsoft Word:



But then we all know that's just a big conspiracy. So:

From dictionary.com
par·ry

v. par·ried, par·ry·ing, par·ries

1. To deflect or ward off (a fencing thrust, for example).
2. To deflect, evade, or avoid: He skillfully parried the question with a clever reply.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Doesn't parry = deflect?

No. A parry can be a block as well.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Gherald

But if I were to actually train with such a weapon, a katana/longsword would be the obvious choice, but perhaps as a backup to a pike.

If you were wielding a pike, you'd (hopefully) be in a pretty tightly packed formation, and should thus prefer a shorter backup than a longsword - a sword isn't much use if you don't have room to swing it.