This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Were hammers really even effective?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
Oh alright I gotcha. Just wanted to make sure nobody thought I was saying swords could turn steel plate into Swiss cheese or something.
Post by
Adamsm
Heh, no that was to Platypus's comment that it was 'literally impossible' to hack through plate. Improbable, but not impossible.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Guys, I think you're glossing over one of the biggest things at play when comes to innovations in warfare: it's an arms race. As certain weapons began to become popular and easy to mass produce, armor was designed to protect against them, which lead to further weapon innovations to make them more effective against the armor, which lead to better armor, which lead to.... see the pattern? Talking about plate mail in the abstract versus any given weapon in the abstract isn't going to lead to you many relevant conclusions. Ideally, the relative effectiveness of any given piece of armor or weapon is analyzed within the historical context it originates from.
Post by
Skreeran
On a tagent, it's funny, too, that we effectively reached the top of the arms race. We made a weapon that is impossible to counter (even with nuclear interceptors, back in the Cold War, it would have been impossible to counter the Soviet Union's entire arsenal), and it has essentially led to peace. There will never be a World War 3 so long as the threat of nuclear war looms overhead.
Post by
Gone
On a tagent, it's funny, too, that we effectively reached the top of the arms race. We made a weapon that is impossible to counter (even with nuclear interceptors, back in the Cold War, it would have been impossible to counter the Soviet Union's entire arsenal), and it has essentially led to peace. There will never be a World War 3 so long as the threat of nuclear war looms overhead.
You say that now, but wait until we invent something 10x more deadly than nuclear weapons. Plus, who says we won't be able to invent something to neutralize nukes one day.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Hard to, but not impossible.
That was thrusting. I was refering to "hacking" aka hard slicing actions with the broad cutting end of the weapon.
You're falling into the same fantasy hole that a lot of people do. Assuming plate armor is some unbreakable failsafe. Helmets and shoulders were the thickest plate that most people wore. The chest, girdle, and leg protectors were dramatically less thick, so that people could actually move around. People that wore full body plate as thick as you're describing had to be lowered onto their horses because they couldn't walk with it all.
*Shakes head*. There isn't a fantasy hole, indeed it's the opposite, most idiots think armor is as effective as a shield in a movie. You also hold the incorrect assumption armor is heavy to be protective.
As I said, this isn't some inane samurai movie where two people teleporting at eachother with their ubertanas kill eachother by slicing them in half.
Gothic and later armors were around 40-50 pounds, which is light. You could do cartwheels in it because the weight is evenly distributed.
And let's even assume for the sake of argument that you're right. That medieval armor is made out of the same #$%^ as Wolverine's bones or something and it can't be smashed. What do you think happens to the person underneath it. If you get smashed in the head with something the size of a sledge hammer, it doesn't matter how thick your helmet is, it's probably going to snap your neck.
I've been saying this, that's the point of mauls, to get past armor, but with something as light, weak and brittle as an axe, it's useless.
Despite whatever wikipedia would have you believe, axes could not work against armor, unlike flanged maces. Axes would merely glance off properly made armor thanks to it's shape and durability.
A flanged mace worked because it was just that, a mace. it was a well-balanced piece of heavy metal that could hammer into plate.
You say that now, but wait until we invent something 10x more deadly than nuclear weapons. Plus, who says we won't be able to invent something to neutralize nukes one day.
They're Antimatter weapons and Laser Defense systems respectively.
Post by
Adamsm
I was refering to "hacking" aka hard slicing actions with the broad cutting end of the weapon.Which would still cause physical trauma to the body even if it doesn't cut through the plate itself.
Post by
Lordplatypus
That is true. However plates weren't just meant to stop the cutting force, they were meant to spread the impact of the blow, which is further spread by the underlaying cloth/leather
Post by
Gone
Making condescending comments about wikipedia being my source is a little obtuse considering how blatantly you don't know what you're talking about. But I'm not arguing over that anymore, you're just wrong. I think what HSR said is closest to the truth. It depends on the time period, weapon and armor in question.
I don't get what your bias against axes is though. You know some types of axes are basically sharpened hammers right? If anything a heavier ax is like a hammer with added penetration.
Post by
Lordplatypus
I think what HSR said is closest to the truth. It depends on the time period, weapon and armor in question.
I'm simply aproaching this from the point of view that if A: Medieval fighting styles did not include "Use axe, swing at target" then "Use Axe, swing at target" would not have been effective, whereas "Use Hammer, Break target face" was used and thus considered effective.
I don't get what your bias against axes is though. You know some types of axes are basically sharpened hammers right? If anything a heavier ax is like a hammer with added penetration.
The key problems with axes is that they're just that, axes. A edge will break, a hammerhead won't.
The added penetration is absolutely pointless, the smaller impact area makes a glancing impact more likely, et cetra.
Axes weren't used for a reason.
Post by
Gone
Axes weren't used for a reason.
Actually they were used quite a lot, to great effect by the Vikings, the Normans, the Scotts, the Persians, the Vietnamese, the Mongols, and many others. They didn't go out of popularity until after the 12th century, and didn't disappear entirely until we started using gunpowder.. This is of course not bringing up the fact that stone axes were some of the first prehistoric weapons. Stop making things up.
The key problems with axes is that they're just that, axes. A edge will break, a hammerhead won't. If an ax blade breaks what you basically have left is a hammer head. An ax blade will bend, chip, and dull, but it won't just snap like a sword. At least not the kind that's made properly. The added penetration makes a huge difference, especially since we have been talking about armor...
The added penetration is absolutely pointless, the smaller impact area makes a glancing impact more likely, et cetra.
Actually a smaller, more concentrated point of impact does more damage. That's not an opinion btw, it's basic physics.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Actually they were used quite a lot, to great effect by the Vikings, the Normans, the Scotts, the Persians, the Vietnamese, the Mongols, and many others. They didn't go out of popularity until after the 12th century, and didn't disappear entirely until we started using gunpowder.. This is of course not bringing up the fact that stone axes were some of the first prehistoric weapons. Stop making things up.
They were used by people not fighting in plate armor.
If an ax blade breaks what you basically have left is a hammer head. An ax blade will bend, chip, and dull, but it won't just snap like a sword. At least not the kind that's made properly. The added penetration makes a huge difference, especially since we have been talking about armor...
No, an axe blade will chip in to a blunt club. There is no penetration as I have said before, such a small impact area will glance off a hard metal surface.
Actually a smaller, more concentrated point of impact does more damage. That's not an opinion btw, it's basic physics.
Yes, it is an opinion, the simple fact is that an axe will glance off at an angle a hammer will not thanks to their different shapes.
Post by
Gone
They were used by people not fighting in plate armor.
No, but they were used by people to fight people who wore plate armor. And actually the first thing you said isn't true either, they were used by people that wore plate armor. You know nothing about ancient history.
No, an axe blade will chip in to a blunt club. There is no penetration as I have said before, such a small impact area will glance off a hard metal surface.
No.
Yes, it is an opinion, the simple fact is that an axe will glance off at an angle a hammer will not thanks to their different shapes.
And no.
Post by
Lordplatypus
How? They lacked the armor piercing needed. Simply put, in the age of plate armor, axes were weapons used by the peasant militia the various lords rounded up as grunts because it was cheaper than a real weapon.
Also, just saying no to facts is rather pointless.
Post by
Monday
He's not saying no to your facts. He's saying no to your
opinions
, which you have yet to back up.
As someone who has a fairly workable knowledge of physics, I agree with Ryja.
Post by
Gone
My biggest problem with this guy is just that, he's stating his opinions as facts. And even that wouldn't be that big a deal, if it weren't for the fact that he's said several things that are just blatantly not true. For example:
axes were weapons used by the peasant militia the various lords rounded up as grunts because it was cheaper than a real weapon.
No. Just no. The Vikings loved the battle ax and they were some of the fiercest warriors of their time, hardly peasant militia. They wore mail and plate and they were certainly more than well versed in killing other people who did. Not that I'm going to rely solely on the Viking cliche; axes were also used by the Byzantines, the Saxons, the Goths, the Vandals, the Mongols, and many others, all of whom wore plate and mail (albeit rarely with the mongols) and spent plenty of time killing other people who did as well.
Post by
Lordplatypus
No. Just no. The Vikings loved the battle ax and they were some of the fiercest warriors of their time, hardly peasant militia. They wore mail and plate and they were certainly more than well versed in killing other people who did. Not that I'm going to rely solely on the Viking cliche; axes were also used by the Byzantines, the Saxons, the Goths, the Vandals, the Mongols, and many others, all of whom wore plate and mail (albeit rarely with the mongols) and spent plenty of time killing other people who did as well.
Vikings. Glad you brought that up. You know that most vikings would rather have a sword, an axe is just cheaper. Another group that used axes alot were Egyptians, but eventually switched to swords (Kopeshes).
Just look at a history book. The vikings weren't just lawless savages in horned helmets, rowboats with dragonheads and shields. Heck they had courts and lawyers of all things and a viking would rather use a sword, if he could afford it (Swords don't come cheap).
Axes were used because they were cheap. The mongols were mostly horse archers and lancers, with some heavy cavalry, none of which would put a high emphasis on hand-to-hand melee weapons.
And plate armor before the gothic design were not true full plate armors, a spartan's brozne body armor for example, could be considered plate, but he had less armored limbs, leaving a easy way to cut at him if you could past his shield.
Axes glanced off of plate armor because it wasn't just a square, plate armor was rounded and go ahead and try to swing at a angled piece of metal with the axe. It'll glance off.
A hammer swung at the same area would simply keep going, having a large impact and thus more reliably converting all the kinetic energy.
The idea of a battleaxe breaking through armor is laughable. There's a reason they invented poleaxes, and it's not because of feeling inadequate. Poleaxes were made because regular axes just didn't have the power to break through armor. Unfortunately, any competent medieval warrior that could afford an suit of armor was smart enough to figure out that A: Poleaxes were slow and B: Cut the pole out.
Post by
Monday
You know that most vikings would rather have a sword
Source?
Just look at a history book. The vikings weren't just lawless savages in horned helmets, rowboats with dragonheads and shields. Heck they had courts and lawyers of all things and a viking would rather use a sword, if he could afford it (Swords don't come cheap).
Your premise does not support the conclusion. America has courts and lawyers, but we would rather have guns, not swords.
Axes glanced off of plate armor because it wasn't just a square, plate armor was rounded and go ahead and try to swing at a angled piece of metal with the axe. It'll glance off.
A hammer swung at the same area would simply keep going, having a large impact and thus more reliably converting all the kinetic energy.
No. Your hammer would not just "simply keep going" unless you put much more power in your swing. As a matter of fact, it would be just as likely to glance unless you got a solid hit since, you know, a hammer head generally had an edge of some sort. An axe would do a lot more damage on a direct hit than a hammer, and you can reliably turn an axe INTO a hammer (I've been outdoors enough to know this).
Additionally, blades > blunt in most cases. It wasn't very often that you would fight someone in full plate, the only situation in which a hammer might be superior, and even then the axe will still hit with considerable force even if it wasn't a direct hit.
Post by
Gone
Vikings. Glad you brought that up. You know that most vikings would rather have a sword, an axe is just cheaper.
Lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true and that most vikings preferred swords. Does being more popular all the sudden equate to being better? Handguns are more popular than shotguns, does that make them better? No. It's a different type of weapon that serves a different function. It was a matter of personal preference, not whether or not one could afford a blade. And for the record, a viking longsword would be worse at penetrating armor than you claim an ax would be, so if anything this point is just all the more detrimental to your argument.
Just look at a history book. The vikings weren't just lawless savages in horned helmets, rowboats with dragonheads and shields. Heck they had courts and lawyers of all things
1) I never said anything contradictory to this.
2) This is common knowledge.
3) This literally has absolutely nothing to do with what we have been talking about...
The idea of a battleaxe breaking through armor is laughable.
Your posts are laughable and everybody here can see that. You hop right from one nonsensical thing to another with no rhyme or reason. You start off saying that hammers can't do go through plate, and now you're saying they can. You claim that nobody who wore or fought against plate ever used axes, then when I bring up half a dozen peoples who did use them against plate wearers to great effect, you start trying to say over and over that it's because axes were just cheaper, and bringing up cultures that far predated what we've been talking about like the Spartans and Egyptians. And apparently all pre-Gothic plate "didn't count." Oh that was another funny point. The light Gothic plate you've been going on about is actually easier to penetrate than the thicker, heavier versions that limited mobility.
You know absolutely nothing about history, and less about physics. I wouldn't even bust your balls this much if you would stop stating your unsubstantiated theories as facts.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true and that most vikings preferred swords. Does being more popular all the sudden equate to being better? Handguns are more popular than shotguns, does that make them better? No. It's a different type of weapon that serves a different function. It was a matter of personal preference, not whether or not one could afford a blade. And for the record, a viking longsword would be worse at penetrating armor than you claim an ax would be, so if anything this point is just all the more detrimental to your argument.
A sword is more effective than an axe against armor. It can stab, an axe cannot. The M-16 or AK-47 are more popular than a Hunting rifle and anyone who would go in a fight for their life would rather have one of those, but many cannot access them.
Your posts are laughable and everybody here can see that.
Unsuprisingly you hop off to innacurate insults after insufferable rambling You hop right from one nonsensical thing to another with no rhyme or reason.
Logic seems illogical to the insane You start off saying that hammers can't do go through plate, and now you're saying they can.
I repeatedly said that hammers being able to harm people in plate was the whole point of them You claim that nobody who wore or fought against plate ever used axes, then when I bring up half a dozen peoples who did use them against plate wearers to great effect, you start trying to say over and over that it's because axes were just cheaper,
Axes never were used to "Great Effect" they were less effective than stormtroopers with BB guns going up against hulkified cyborg superman. and bringing up cultures that far predated what we've been talking about like the Spartans and Egyptians. Both very good examples of how patehtic axes were And apparently all pre-Gothic plate "didn't count." Oh that was another funny point. The light Gothic plate you've been going on about is actually easier to penetrate than the thicker, heavier versions that limited mobility.
Gothic plate was full-body covering and more durable, your inaccurate arguments rear their head again.
You know absolutely nothing about history, and less about physics. I wouldn't even bust your balls this much if you would stop stating your unsubstantiated theories as facts.
So my facts are theories and your rambling is true?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.