# Swords vs Axes



## Sheilawisz

I have been thinking about this question for several days, after watching some videos that showed just how effective and deadly the axes can be in combat.

The imaginary scenario would be like this:

You have two medieval European armies facing each other, in open field. They lack cavalry and archers, one of the armies being equipped completely with swords (arming sword, longsword, falchions and others) while the opposite army carries all styles and lengths of axes.

Also, both armies count with the same type of shields.

Assuming that both armies are composed by good soldiers, they are led by competent generals and that there are no geographic advantages for either side... What would happen when an all-swords army engages an all-axes army in battle??

I think that it's an interesting scenario.


----------



## Malik

The sword, in trained hands, is a superior weapon to pretty much everything short of a gun. That's why we used them for 3,000 years. However, skillful use of a sword against an armored foe takes a lifetime of training and discipline, and good swords have always been expensive.

Axes require less steel and less finesse. They were cheap to make and instinctive in the hand, and they raised all kinds of hell against armor. You can outfit an army pretty fast with axes -- not a lot of steel, and almost anyone who worked for a living was familiar with it.

Another thing to think of is the spear, which was _the_ soldier's weapon since time immemorial. Spears were cheaper than axes and much more versatile. A spear was a range weapon, it could be used en masse for area denial, you could stab, slash, trip, club, and defend with it -- there are wonderful medieval and Eastern martial arts techniques using spears for throws and takedowns that rival anything in Judo -- you could use it with a shield, and you could throw it at somebody if you had to. 

In my books, the majority of the soldiery use axes and spears. Trained-from-birth knights and elite professional soldiers use swords.

An army made up of warriors with swords would decimate an army of axe-men; the swordsmen would be better trained, better drilled, better equipped, and would likely be volunteers or professionals who had a predilection for that sort of work. An army of axemen would, generally, be a rabble thrown together as a last-ditch effort. If they had the money to outfit themselves properly and had the willingness and time to train, they'd be using swords.

EDIT: If I was in an army made up of guys with axes and I saw an army made entirely of guys with swords coming, my first thought would be, "This is some bull****, right here." An army of axemen and spearmen would be much more effective using guerrilla tactics against a well-trained and well-equipped force. To meet them on the field man to man would be suicidal.


----------



## Malik

I misread your original post, so I apologize. 

Assuming both sides were exactly equal, the side with the swords would decimate them. They would have many more options at their disposal. Swords, like spears, are extremely versatile. You can fight close, you can fight at a distance, you have an infinite choice of guards and vectors of attack, and in any of these you can feint, stab, slash, chop, strike with the false edge (thumb side), misdirect, envelop, oppose, cross, bind,  cutover, coule, parry, jump lunge, fleche, and every inch of the thing is dangerous. Even the pommel and crossbar of a sword function as brass knuckles in close combat. You can trap an axe handle with the blade of a sword, grab the swordtip with your other hand, and hip-throw the axeman, or break his arm, or -- if you like -- you can knock his teeth out with the crossbar and then break his arm and _then_ hip-throw him. You can also do more with your footwork with a sword than with an axe because with the axe you pretty much have to have your hips into the thing to drive it, which makes it really hard to feint convincingly and also means there will be a degree of telegraphing and commitment to each blow. A good swordsman, who really knew swordsmanship, could whip a guy with an axe just by watching his feet. He'd know when every blow was coming.

The sword is superior to the axe because of its versatility. Axes kill just fine, but swords do so much more, and because of this, they let you dictate the fight. Axes are pretty much single-purpose. One cutting surface, one cutting stroke, fixed length of moment arm. Outside of the pump fake, there's not a lot he can do with it. He has to hit you with a four-or five-inch section of cutting edge. Somehow. Period. Facing an axeman, all you have to do is not let him do that, and that's relatively simple. Swords, conversely, allow an endless combination of feints, guards, and offensive and defensive techniques to keep an opponent guessing. Keeping your opponent guessing is huge, because you win a fight by making just one less mistake.

Assuming equal fighting ability, the swordsman wins.


----------



## Mr. Steve

Speaking on the superiority of swords, the Roman gladius was meant to be used in extremely close order, with the men locking shields, advancing as one, and thrusting with the gladius.  I don't have the citation handy, but I believe it was determined by historians that, while the battle formations of the time allowed many of Rome's enemies to bring two men and their weapons to bear in a given space, the Romans could pack in three thanks to their preference for close-order formations and short swords that are meant primarily to be used for stabbing.  Obviously, with longer swords it will be a bit different, but at least there is a specific advantage to using short, stabbing swords, especially with a force that is well-disciplined, in addition to what has been mentioned above.


----------



## wordwalker

Speaking of stabbing, another advantage of swords was _reach_. You can count on a sword to be longer and lighter (or rather, more evenly balanced; raw poundage isn't so simple) than an axe that's more or less equivalent in function; an arming-sword-length axe would be a huge, clumsy weapon you might not even try to use one-handed. And if a sword is used in a _thrust_, it gets even more reach, as well as piercing power against armor-- with the usual caveat that all that is for getting around the shield, not though it.

I believe maces and hammers never got the mass use that the trio of swords, spears, and axes (and their polearm combinations) got. Unless you were expecting to face heavy armor (which probably made you a well-equipped knight yourself), most things you could do with a blunt weapon you could do better with an axe anyway.


----------



## Guy

I'm going to respectfully disagree. Assuming you had armies of more or less equal numbers and skill, I think it'd be a coin toss. Axes, particularly the big ones, are wonderfully versatile weapons; hooking the shield and haul it aside, hook the back of the knee and jerk a man off balance, striking with the butt end of the haft, jabbing with the blade end of the haft, choking up on grip underneath the socket and using the blade as knuckle dusters are just some of the options an axe man has. He would be able to use grappling, traps, holds and throws as easily as a swordsman could. A power swing requires use of the hips, but not all axe techniques. Something like a pole axe or halberd has significant reach advantage over swords. I have three tomahawks, which are also much more versatile than one might expect. And axes pack a punch. Armor has an easier time resisting swords than axes. Edges ranged far beyond four or five inches. I own three two handed axes, with eight, ten and thirteen inch edges, respectfully. The one with the thirteen inch edge is actually the lightest of the three. I've seen one with an eighteen inch edge and one historical source refers to one with a twenty one inch edge. And for those that did have short edges, you have to remember that the entire force of the blow as concentrated in that short edge, resulting in deep penetration. A true battle axe was significantly lighter than a general purpose or wood chopping axe because the blades were thinner. They're not nearly as awkward as most people think. Moreover, an axe blade will generally withstand more punishment than a sword blade. Sword blades are much more prone to damage through torquing and twisting. A big axe blade like the ones on Danish axes can block a sword without a great deal of trouble. A sword blocking an axe is much more problematic. In fact, attempting to block an axe is generally a bad idea. As much as I love my longswords, if I had to go up against a guy in heavy armor, I'd definitely take an axe over a sword.

For historical examples of effective axe men, look at the Vikings, the Huscarles, and the Verangian Guard (who were, in fact, Vikings).


----------



## wordwalker

Guy said:


> For historical examples of effective axe men, look at the Vikings, the Huscarles, and the Verangian Guard (who were, in fact, Vikings).



Or the Franks, arguably _named_ after their axe, the francisca. All the above maneuvers, and it could be thrown-- sometimes to bounce up off the ground into your face. Axes aren't as quick, but they do have their tricks.

Speaking of throws, whenever I see some character drop someone with a thrown dagger, I think "that's a silly way to spell 'axe'."


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

It does depend a lot on the battle. Against men in armour an axe is superior. Sword's don't generally crack good steel which is why the two handed swords, great swords were carried by knights etc. Against foes not wearing armour the sword is a much superior weapon because of its point. You can't generally stab a person with an axe, though a lot of pole arms did start getting points added just for this reason. Axes are usually somewhat heavier and slower than swords, and they usually have only one plane of attack they can use. A sword has two plus a point (Not counting single edged swords of course.) But to counter this axes can be thrown which can be a surprise move in a battle.

There is a reason that the sword dominated the world of the professional soldier. It is the superior weapon.

However there's something far more important to consider. Swords became the professional soldier's melee weapon for a reason. But when that happened soldiers were trained in them. So you actually have schools of swordsmanship. Axes by contrast were commonplace weapons. They weren't generally used by professional soldiers, and so fighters weren't generally trained in them. If you had an army of swordsmen against an army of axemen the chances are that the swordsmen would be better trained and that would hugely carry the day.

On the other hand if you had two rabbles fighting, neither side with any training, it would be a much more even contest.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## wordwalker

True enough. Swords look better the more skilled you are, but also the lighter your opponent's armor is-- which could mean you were cutting up someone much less professional. And the capper on the sword mystique came from fighters like Renaissance duelists and Meiji-era samurai, who'd perfected their swordsmanship but abandoned their armor.

But the fact that most professionals did prefer swords shows where the balance between swords and axes is: only the rawer troops, or again the knights fighting serious armor (that's not greatsword-worthy yet), seem to do better with the axe.


----------



## Malik

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Swords became the professional soldier's melee weapon for a reason. But when that happened soldiers were trained in them. So you actually have schools of swordsmanship. Axes by contrast were commonplace weapons. They weren't generally used by professional soldiers, and so fighters weren't generally trained in them. If you had an army of swordsmen against an army of axemen the chances are that the swordsmen would be better trained and that would hugely carry the day.



I was actually thinking about exactly this when I was out for my run this morning. I can't name any schools of axemanship. I can name a dozen schools of swordsmanship, though. _Fior de Battaglia_,  Lovino, Marozzo, Agrippa, Capo Ferro, Fabris, Tamiriz, Silver, just off the top of my head and not even turning around to look at my bookshelf. We're not seeing hundreds of translations of ancient manuals on axe combat. 

Historically, there were very few massive, well-organized, training, drilling professional armies armed primarily with axes. There were a few -- the Varangian Guard and the Huscarls, as mentioned, though they were used as specialized shock troops and were few in number. They were also berserkers, which probably explains the lack of manuals on axe technique; and I should note that they also carried swords, typically short saxes, as secondary weapons. So it's not that the axe was ineffective, but the sword was the weapon of the schooled professional while the axe was for the gifted amateur who carried the day through brute force and ignorance -- which, I'll give you, goes a long way in a fight. 

It could be argued that the Varangian Guard continued to fight with axes as a tradition, not necessarily because it was a better weapon. 

Another argument -- I'd think _the_ argument -- for the sword's superiority is that we developed the axe long before the sword. The axe was one of the first tools, and became one of the first weapons of war, but was supplanted by the sword. If the axe was militarily superior to the sword, the sword would never have taken hold as _the_ trained soldier's weapon of choice for the majority of our years of civilization. The sword raises armed combat to an entire other level. We'd have stuck with metal axes otherwise.

These are all things that you could tweak in your fantasy world, though. Schools of axe combat, regional styles, formal traditions and katas, etc. Axe masters instead of sword masters. You could make the axe as professional and refined a weapon as the sword. It just didn't happen here.

EDIT: I should add, too, that I carry a tomahawk on deployment for, um, utility work. In CQB it's my go-to over my knife. You'll get no arguments from me on its effectiveness.


----------



## Malik

wordwalker said:


> only the rawer troops, or again the knights fighting serious armor (that's not greatsword-worthy yet), seem to do better with the axe.



There was a sword, the great sword of war, the Oakeshott Type XIIIa _gran espee de guerre_, which is criminally underrepresented in fantasy literature though it was specifically designed to defeat guys in armor. Smaller than a Claymore or zweihander, it was a two-handed sword with 3-4 feet of blade, a stout edge, and a trick bevel that would wreck armor. It was the man-at-arms's weapon of choice on the battlefield for hundreds of years but no writers seem to ever use it. I've mentioned it a few times in the Ask Me About Swords thread, and I have an article on it coming out on this site in January.


----------



## Ankari

Malik said:


> There was a sword, the great sword of war, the Oakeshott Type XIIIa _gran espee de guerre_, which is criminally underrepresented in fantasy literature though it was specifically designed to defeat guys in armor.



Is that similar to the bastard sword?


----------



## Nobby

Hmm, yet the sword was also crippled in the middle ages with shorter, heavier blades used once Longbow archery and later firearms were developed as weapons of warfare combined with the devaluation of expensive plate armour. And further more devalued as a dandies point sword (sort of a rapier, elegant but useless up close) But...dun-dun-DUN the short (hand or hatchet) axe was considered very useful in ship to ship fighting in the eighteenth century. Horses for courses


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Not to quibble but Gran Espee De Guerre is French for Great Sword of War, and Oakeshott was an early twentieth century collecter of swords and writer about them. In short it's just a greatsword, and all great swords were developed specifically to overcome men in armour. That's why they have the longer heavier blade and the longer two handed grip. They're actually not that much use, not even in claymore form, for melee against lighter, unarmoured faster moving opponents. They're just too slow and require too much strength and energy from their wielder. They suffer from the same penalties as long handled axes.

If you have knights in armour slugging it out greatswords would be the weapon of choice. If you have a frenzied melee situation with lightly armoured opponants a typical one handed long sword or shortsword combined with a shield (sword and board as they say) is the far superior option.

And if no one's trained in war and weapons then mostly the sword would win but it'll be far more even and depend a lot on luck, speed, reflexes - and did I mention luck - as to who walks away.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Shockley

Two questions before I even attempt to answer this:

2. Are we considering halberds axes for this question?

2. Are we considering bills axes for this question?


----------



## Malik

Ankari said:


> Is that similar to the bastard sword?



Not quite.








The green-handled sword is a bastardsword. It is designed for use with one hand but can be wielded with two in a pinch. Note that the handle has a delineation at the midpoint. That's one of the telltale signs of a bastardsword. Also, note the taper. This is a slashing sword, with a thrusting point. It will feel lighter and more agile in the hand than the blue-handled sword (which we'll get to in a moment), even though both swords weigh the same.

The blue-handled sword is a gran espee de guerre -- I use the term to differentiate from "greatsword" because when most writers use the word "greatsword" they're talking about a Claymore or other six-foot, Type XX monstrosity. It is a two-handed sword that can be wielded one-handed. It is a chopping, mauling, armor-wrecking sword. Note the very slight taper, the fuller ending right at the sweet spot, and the spatulate tip. These are similarly-sized swords, both "longswords" by some definition (EDIT: the argument goes on as to whether a "longsword" is a sword with room for two hands on the handle or a sword primarily designed to be swung with two hands, but either way, two hands are involved) yet they are radically different weapons with completely different functions. As different as a ball-peen hammer and a framing hammer.

More on these weapons here.


----------



## Malik

psychotick said:


> They're actually not that much use, not even in claymore form, for melee against lighter, unarmoured faster moving opponents. They're just too slow and require too much strength and energy from their wielder.



That's a common misconception, and it's unfortunately reinforced by many fantasy writers whose only combat experience is gaming systems that for some reason want to make people think that getting into what amounts to a chainsaw fight without as much armor as you can physically carry is somehow a good idea. 

With the left hand on the pommel, the tip of a warsword can be manipulated almost surgically, quickly and precisely enough to even fence against a rapier. Bastardswords were designed for this; warswords, while more of a crushing, smashing weapon, can be used the same way, especially the bigger greatswords, which would have a blunted or leather-wrapped ricossa (a blunted section above the crossguard) allowing the wielder to choke up on it.






Granted, this sword is a Fedischswert, right out of the Liechtenauer 14th-17th Century school of longsword fencing, probably a pound lighter than a greatsword, but the physics holds up. I've done this kind of fencing with a full-sized (blunted) Type XIIIa.


----------



## Caged Maiden

Yeah... this is sorta like comparing my kids coloring with crayola colored pencils to me drawing with my prismacolors....  Hands down, the sword army would win.

IF... you had two peasant armies.. both dressed in ragged cloth clothing and both with NO training to speak of.... okay, the axes would probably stand a chance.  But they would give up reach to the swords.  

Most knights had swords and hammer/ axe, just because there was need of both a primary weapon and a backup.  Archers also carried swords for close combat.  It's just the best weapon for engaging an enemy because it is light, sharp, and versatile.  

The most important thing to remember is how much swords weighed.  They weren't the monstrous, cumbersome things most people assume they were.  In fact, they were crafted with care, weighted well, and expertly maintained.  They were expensive and just like a good horse or fine clothing... they represented the man who used them.  A nobleman didn't cheap out on a weapon that stood between him and seeing his own entrails.  

Now... when firearms became popular, steel armor grew useless quickly.  So swords became lighter than ever before.  Well, not ever before, but rapiers became common rather than "bastard swords" (not named that until the 1800's I think), because armor wasn't heavy.  Landsknecht wore steel breastplates and possibly a few more pieces, but largely abandoned armor in favor of movement.  In fact, armor was expensive too and since it no longer protected from the current weapon technologies of the time, many soldiers wet without.  It might take a mercenary his whole career to afford a whole set of armor.  Noblemen could afford it, but they didn't often fight anymore.  Probably one reason the engraving and enameling on their portraits is so perfect and beautiful.  I'm not sure.  I never researched that.  

Okay, I vote the swordsmen, and not just because I'm a fencer.


----------



## Guy

Malik said:


> I was actually thinking about exactly this when I was out for my run this morning. I can't name any schools of axemanship. I can name a dozen schools of swordsmanship, though. _Fior de Battaglia_,  Lovino, Marozzo, Agrippa, Capo Ferro, Fabris, Tamiriz, Silver, just off the top of my head and not even turning around to look at my bookshelf. We're not seeing hundreds of translations of ancient manuals on axe combat.


Several of those books cover pole axe. So far we haven't found any sword manuals prior to the thirteenth century, but that doesn't mean swordplay wasn't well developed prior to the thirteenth century. It just means the manuals either weren't written or we haven't discovered them. The same likely applies to axe combat. 


> Another argument -- I'd think _the_ argument -- for the sword's superiority is that we developed the axe long before the sword. The axe was one of the first tools, and became one of the first weapons of war, but was supplanted by the sword. If the axe was militarily superior to the sword, the sword would never have taken hold as _the_ trained soldier's weapon of choice for the majority of our years of civilization. The sword raises armed combat to an entire other level. We'd have stuck with metal axes otherwise.


Knights did use axes in addition to swords. This is especially true as plate armor became more effective. 

As you said, axes have been around a long, long time. It follows that during that span of time fighting techniques were worked out for them.


----------



## Guy

Caged Maiden said:


> Yeah... this is sorta like comparing my kids coloring with crayola colored pencils to me drawing with my prismacolors....  Hands down, the sword army would win.
> 
> IF... you had two peasant armies.. both dressed in ragged cloth clothing and both with NO training to speak of.... okay, the axes would probably stand a chance.  But they would give up reach to the swords.


Halberds and bills have far better reach them swords. There are plenty of examples of non-noble infantry defeating knights. Well trained knights armed with swords, armor and more went up against Swiss infantry armed with halberds and pikes, and the Swiss handed their highly trained iron clad asses to them.


> The most important thing to remember is how much swords weighed. They weren't the monstrous, cumbersome things most people assume they were. In fact, they were crafted with care, weighted well, and expertly maintained.


You'd be surprised how often that could be said of axes, too. A proper battle axe, an axe meant solely for fighting, wasn't nearly as clumsy as most people think. The blades on many were only two or three millimeters thick. They're not as pretty as swords, but the men who used them depended on them just as much as a swordsman depended on his weapon. It's reasonable to conclude that over the millenia that axemen have existed, they would have developed good fighting skills. Vikings were huge fans of axes, and I don't think anybody would call them novices when it came to fighting.


> Now... when firearms became popular, steel armor grew useless quickly.  So swords became lighter than ever before.  Well, not ever before, but rapiers became common rather than "bastard swords" (not named that until the 1800's I think), because armor wasn't heavy.


Rapiers were never intended for the battlefield. Using a rapier was highly technical and required great skill, yet of the historical examples I know of when a rapier man went up against someone armed withsomething else, the highly trained rapier man got his ass kicked every time.


----------



## Caged Maiden

I guess I went off on a tangent about armor, really.  I never tried to imply rapiers were a good battle choice, merely that swords grew lighter as a result of less armor in general.  In cities, rapiers were the weapons considered essential for personal defense.  Two-handed swords in Elizabeth I's reign tended to be ceremonial, but not something one would carry around for personal protection.  I think the original post is unlikely, to say the least.  Against horses, pikes were essential, as were caltrops... against footmen with spears, archers... etc.  I mean, to consider one army having only an assortment of axes (who knows what that even means) and another having only an array of swords... it's really almost a silly question.  Historically, it would never happen.  Now, if someone suggested a sort of tribal clash of sorts, one side armed with spears and the other with tomahawks... for reasons of weapons technology... I guess it would be more realistic, but the spears would certainly win in that case.  

The point is... debating  theoretical battle with an absurd amount of information, is difficult.  unfortunately, there is a lot of modern myth surrounding weapons and my note that even "heavy" swords weren't the clunky things written about in modern fantasy, was in no way meant to imply axes WERE somehow unwieldy.  I merely said swords were well-made.  I'm not an axe hater.  I just think the argument was made that there were no schools for axe-wielding and most of those schools weren't intended for warfare, they were personal defense as far as I'm aware.  Agrippa and Cappo Ferro were "Masters of Defense" to my knowledge and we study their techniques for fencing.  That's a different thing than warfare.  We're combining a lot of OTHER information into this thread about a theoretical army.


----------



## Guy

Caged Maiden said:


> The point is... debating  theoretical battle with an absurd amount of information, is difficult.


True enough. I think where people go wrong is not realizing that this particular equation is composed almost entirely of variables. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages, but very few guarantees. For example, superior reach would seem to be an obvious advantage, and it often is, yet there are many examples of people using shorter weapons yet enjoying great success on the battlefield, such as the Romans or the Zulu. There are numerous examples of people who should've won due to superior numbers, arms or skill, yet they lost. That was my ultimate point:  saying one army would win because they had weapon X and the other army had weapon Y is too simple. It _can_ make the difference, but that doesn't mean it _will._


----------



## Shockley

I would certainly never claim any kind of expertise in military matters, and my historical studies have never extended to the military. That said, in military formation, it's very difficult for me to imagine a unit armed with poleaxes (which could be up to eight feet long), bills and halberds being overrun as easily as some of the posters have implied. 

The Axe side has some serious potential for zone control that the swordsmen lack, and I think that could be critical in a pitched battle.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Thank you for all of these answers and opinions, this is a very interesting thread.

First of all, I wanted to say that I know how unlikely my proposed scenario would be from the historical point of view. A proper army in the European Middle Ages would involve archers, cavalry, spears, swords and everything, so I am sure that a battle between an all-swords army and another composed by axemen exclusively never took place.

It's just an imaginary scenario, but anyway, the what-if comparison between swords and axes is intriguing.

@Shockley: Yes, the all-axes army would have halberds, but not all of them would be armed with those. The idea is that a wide variety of swords and axes would be involved in the battle, from falchions to greatswords and from small, throwing axes to great halberds.

I like to believe that the swordsmen would win because I am in love with swords, but after reading the answers here, I guess that it would be a hard battle for both sides and either of them could emerge victorious.

Who knows, maybe those with a higher morale would win the battle =)


----------



## Caged Maiden

one thing about a long weapon (because we use them in the SCA, too), is that while it DOES have an initial reach advantage, once the opponent passes beyond the point... the longer weapon is at a disadvantage in close combat.  A serious equalizer in either single combat or where two armies clash and the force from behind will send those in the fore, crashing through the spear line.

As a rapier fighter, I'm 5'3" and use a 38" blade.  That's REALLY short!  I often face opponents that use 41" blades, not to mention they're ten inches taller than me and have about 5" of reach advantage before blades are measured.  So... my whole tactic is to be a counter-puncher, taunting my opponent to strike, while I'm standing an inch outside their lunge range.  At that point, I close the distance because once I'm in range, they are actually at the disadvantage, their blade and reach actually becoming a hindrance.  I could see pole arms being much the same.  Hand axes would be advantageous in close combat.


----------



## wordwalker

Caged Maiden said:


> one thing about a long weapon (because we use them in the SCA, too), is that while it DOES have an initial reach advantage, once the opponent passes beyond the point... the longer weapon is at a disadvantage in close combat.  A serious equalizer in either single combat or where two armies clash and the force from behind will send those in the fore, crashing through the spear line.
> 
> As a rapier fighter, I'm 5'3" and use a 38" blade.  That's REALLY short!  I often face opponents that use 41" blades, not to mention they're ten inches taller than me and have about 5" of reach advantage before blades are measured.  So... my whole tactic is to be a counter-puncher, taunting my opponent to strike, while I'm standing an inch outside their lunge range.  At that point, I close the distance because once I'm in range, they are actually at the disadvantage, their blade and reach actually becoming a hindrance.  I could see pole arms being much the same.  Hand axes would be advantageous in close combat.



Plus, when you have a shield (like most sane soldiers, and very few fictional characters), that closing-in step isn't as risky as it sounds-- while the other guy's step away is a _backward_ step and not quite as safe.

The larger question might be who can take that step while staying beside his buddies. The classic classical battle turned into simply a shoving match, shield vs shield and weight-of-the-ranks-behind-you all pressing in, each trying to push the other back and hope some fell over to open up the shieldwall. (Hmm, wonder where rugby's "scrum" came from?)


----------



## Clarence Matthews

Man this is a fascinating conversation. If I may throw some food for thought into it. Axes used in combat as previously mentioned were not always styled after a wood axe. They would have a thinner cutting edge than a splitting maul and a sharpened beard that would be used for hooking limbs, and shields. Hook around an opponents weapon and twist to wrench it from their grasp. If it had a decent flair off the head it could be used as a stabbing weapon. Also a pick head axe could pierce armor. Two handed axes on a full swing even blocked by a shield could still break the bone beneath it, and in close combat could be wielded in a fashion vaguely similar to a quarter staff. 

Two fully armored knights meet on a field of battle. One with sword and shield another with two handed axe. The latter knight blocks an overhand swing of the sword with the stave of his axe and then with a quarter staff like swing burries the the pick head of his axe into the unprotected area of the other knights underarm. Thus the battle is over as quickly as it started. Of course the battle could just as easily gone the other way.

Swords were a status symbol. It took a lot more time and materials to craft a sword than an axe but as a weapon system I don't know if I would go as far as to say one was infinitely better than the other. An experienced warrior usually beats an inexperienced one but so many factors come into play. If an axe army fights a sword army and the axe army is better trained and experienced but has never trained against fighting someone with a sword but the less experienced sword army has trained to combat the axe my money is on the sword. 

They are both tremendously lethal weapon systems that I have a great respect for and I just personally can't pick between.


----------

