Any armorers/blacksmiths on here?

The thing about battle axes is that you don't need to cut trough plate either, the weight behind them can cause a lot of blunt trauma as well (if heavy enough and not as effectively as say, a mace), knocking enemies out of combat. With an axe you have all the weight on the tip, again, same as using a long sword griping it from the blade, you change the center of weight. It all goes back to the same point, the damage the Polish guys in the video take is not that different from the real deal, and non blunt weapons, agains the armor they are wearing, wouldn't have had a better effect. In fact, one of them in the video actually used a poleaxe, he could effectively have killed someone with that, however their tactics are more aimed at winning the game inside the "pit" they are in than actually killing someone.

As a result their moves are not something you would see at HEMA, they are more brutal and less precise, if you used a sharp weapon to stab someone trough a slot or weak point in the armor that would be "illegal", so it would be that all of them had poleaxes and their hits were aimed at vital areas I would think.

EDIT

And no, the axe as a weapon of war was not around a lot in the late middle ages, like Beaushizzle said. A viking versus a kingth in full plate would have been a figth from different eras. Eventually everyone adopted the newest things the others were using, so is the arms race.
 
Last edited:
Frankish, Viking, and Slavic axes are interconnected, guys. The first battle axe widely seen on Europen battlefields was Frankish francesca, later Viking barda slightly inspired by its design, and then Slavic bradatica evolved from Viking barda. Even halberds wielded by German landsknechts in 15-16th century are nothing else than improved battle axes; first plate mail pieces appeared in 13th century with first full-plate mails in 14th. Battle axes served in European military forces until late 16th century, before they've discarded them for good.

Gonzalez said:
The thing about battle axes is that you don't need to cut trough plate either, the weight behind them can cause a lot of blunt trauma as well ..
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's why there's blunt headland or sharp spike on the other side of battle axe's head. One side of the axe head or another, all the inertial force is concentrated to one single point thanks to its curved blade, unlike with sword.
 
Well, if you say a poleaxe is technically a two handed axe, then yes, the same with other specialized weapons that could be called axes, I suppose "battle axe" is a broad enough term. You just wouldn't see you typical iconic 11th century viking figthing a 14th century knight.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollaxe
The pollaxe is a type of European polearm which was widely used by medieval infantry. It is also known by the names poleaxe, pole-axe, pole axe, polax, and Hache (French meaning axe)...

...Sometimes weapons such as the halberd, the bardiche or the Danish axe are mistakenly called pollaxes as they are indeed axes mounted on poles, but many etymological authorities consider the poll- prefix historically unrelated to "pole", instead meaning "head".[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
There are however some etymologists, such as Eric Partridge, who do believe that the word is derived from "pole".
Click to expand...

I'll just leave this and say I'm not going to go there, we could be talking about it all day.
 
Agreed.
One thing I find interesting is Milanese versus Gothic armor. Is there a consensus as to which was more effective?
 
Just oppinions. My preference, if I had to choose one for combat: Gothic < Milanese/Italian < Maximilian (evolution of gothic)

For the looks I like the Gothic more than the Milanese tho.
 
I could as well ask this here, I remember that there seems to be a debate about the battle of Azincourt in 1415 if I am not wrong. The point was if a longbow arrow could actually penetrate the armor of the French or not. So? What do you guys think? Yay or Nay?
 
Yeah, I just watchint it maybe I am stupid, but I don't think they directly mentioned Azingcourt, but I could have simply missed that part ... somehow. It definitely falls in that time period.
 
Beaushizzle said:
I agree with Gonzalez. Snapslav, you are wrong. Yes, you can cleave through armor. If you are particularly strong and throw everything you have at it. But you also have multiple layers, rounded surfaces, a moving target, and the opponent's attempt to kill you to consider. Bladed weapons were just not effective enough against armor to justify their use against plate armored opponents.
Explain why I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't need to explain anything, except that you are claiming the wrong person is wrong. The "Yes, you can..." part of your statement is EVERYTHING I was saying, yet you're telling me "I'm wrong"? Re-read my claims before you assume them to be false.

Did I NOT explicitly state that other weapons were more suited to the purpose of caving in plate armor? Did I NOT explicitly state that while physically POSSIBLE, the forces necessary for these sword weapons would be ridiculous to accomplish the same task? Both kiiiiiinda sorta EXACTLY what you just said? Yet I'm wrong, huh?

Read before you write. Learn before you jump to conclusions. Gonzales has been attacking a straw man, and agreeing with him is doing the same thing. The fact that you didn't understand what I said is confirmation enough of the case.
 
SnapSlav said:
Beaushizzle said:
I agree with Gonzalez. Snapslav, you are wrong. Yes, you can cleave through armor. If you are particularly strong and throw everything you have at it. But you also have multiple layers, rounded surfaces, a moving target, and the opponent's attempt to kill you to consider. Bladed weapons were just not effective enough against armor to justify their use against plate armored opponents.
Explain why I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't need to explain anything, except that you are claiming the wrong person is wrong. The "Yes, you can..." part of your statement is EVERYTHING I was saying, yet you're telling me "I'm wrong"? Re-read my claims before you assume them to be false.

Did I NOT explicitly state that other weapons were more suited to the purpose of caving in plate armor? Did I NOT explicitly state that while physically POSSIBLE, the forces necessary for these sword weapons would be ridiculous to accomplish the same task? Both kiiiiiinda sorta EXACTLY what you just said? Yet I'm wrong, huh?

Read before you write. Learn before you jump to conclusions. Gonzales has been attacking a straw man, and agreeing with him is doing the same thing. The fact that you didn't understand what I said is confirmation enough of the case.
Click to expand...
So, you agree that you're wrong, then?
 
I don't know how people like you do that. Identify with the exact same thing someone says, repeat in different words the exact same things they said, then spin on a dime and say "you're wrong" to their face. It's illogical, and it's beyond my capacity. So no, I do not "agree that [I'm] wrong".
 
There's sharp enough, and then there's massive enough. You do CLEAVE through mail and plate with massive enough weapons... that's what claymores and zweihanders were made for, after all. You DO cut through lesser armors, provided the armors are fabric/hide/fiber based, and provided the blades are sharp enough. ...
Click to expand...

An interesting part of (German) History, of which I have no clue if it is right or wrong. So anyone feel free to correct me if he has better knowledge.

Anyway in Germany they used the term Doppelsoeldner for those using a so called Bidhaender - the Twohandsword. Another term was allso Gassenhauer which roughly translatted goes like cutting alleys or yea Alleycutter, in the sense that you would cutt an allay/passage in enemy formations. And this is, at least from what I know the way how they have been used in battle, not to counter armor. The two hand sword it seems was not made with the intention to actually defeat armor, of which you had better options anyway, not to mention that a Claymore/twohand sword is not THAT much heavier compared to a normal longsword/onehand sword - Skallagrim I think mentioned that somewhere, he is using them in his training.

I guess the rough idea was to use the reach of twohand weapons to actually cut and cause dissaray in enemey formations, mainly those which are unarmored or very lightly protected. A very dangerous task as you would usually end up in the front of any formation. Hence why they got the name Doppelsoelder, as they received usually double payment as mercenaries which describes their name in German, doublemercenary. I personally don't believe that twohand swords are very effective in defeating armor, probably not even chainmails. However, against unprotected targets? Devastating. It is said that one strike could take down up to 3 or even 4 oponents. Which considering the medieval/late medieval formations doesn't seem THAT unbelievable.
 
SnapSlav said:
I don't know how people like you do that. Identify with the exact same thing someone says, repeat in different words the exact same things they said, then spin on a dime and say "you're wrong" to their face. It's illogical, and it's beyond my capacity. So no, I do not "agree that [I'm] wrong".
Click to expand...

People like me? Racist. And still wrong.
 
Those huge swords from the renaissance era (that's right, not middle ages) were used for something far more effective than armored targets: pike formations. Such big swords had a long reach (which is what they were made for, reach, not like in video games where they are used because they are more "brutal") that was perfect for disrupting the lines of pikes so that others may get between them and attack the pikemen up close.

Again, by the time those swords were common use we are talking renaissance battles and tactics, where you would have formations of pikemen, musketeers and heavy infantry who would usually have these greatswords (in Spain they called these formations "tercios" Spanish word for "thirds"), eventually they went to only pikes and muskets, and after that muskets only (you see where the evolution is going).

In the following video you can see the kind of battlefield these would have been used in, the formation in the video is only composed of pikemen and musketeers, but I think you can appreciate how useful a sword with such reach would had been to disrupt the lines of pikes, maybe even cutting the tips of some of them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beaushizzle said:
SnapSlav said:
I don't know how people like you do that. Identify with the exact same thing someone says, repeat in different words the exact same things they said, then spin on a dime and say "you're wrong" to their face. It's illogical, and it's beyond my capacity. So no, I do not "agree that [I'm] wrong".
Click to expand...

People like me? Racist. And still wrong.
Click to expand...

Please..... in what way is that racist? Did he know exactly what race/nationality you were before making that statement?

SnapSlav said:
I don't know how people like you do that. Identify with the exact same thing someone says, repeat in different words the exact same things they said, then spin on a dime and say "you're wrong" to their face. It's illogical, and it's beyond my capacity. So no, I do not "agree that [I'm] wrong".
Click to expand...

This is one of those people who, when they can't come up with anything witty to say as a comeback to an argument, they try to make you look stupid with "So you agree with me then?" In all actuality, anyone with a shred of common sense knows exactly where the cards on the table lie, and this is simply another bait tactic people use in as an unintuitive defense.
 
Last edited:
What movie is that, Gonzalez? It looks awesome.

There are lots of very touchy, butthurt people on this site. Wow.
 
Last edited:
It's a thing here, it wouldn't be the same without it.

The movie is Alatriste (2006).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top