Swords vs Axes

[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]

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]

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.