Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuruharan
This may come as a shock to some...but I'm not particularly up on my metalsmithing.
But it seems to me that an axe would be a lot easier to make than say a sword.
Kind of odd for a race that prides itself on its metalsmithery.
|
Depends on the kind of axe. If you look at the pic I linked to in my first post you'll see a number of variations. aside from the main blade you could have a hook or hammerhead on the back & a spike on the end (or both ends) of the haft.
A sword is an effective weapon against an unarmoured opponent, but its slashing effect is useless against mail, Brigandine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine or even a basic Jack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson. An axe has the advantage over a sword in that its heavier blade (as has been noted) will break bones or damage internal organs even when there is no penetration. And swords blunt (& bend) more easily than an axe or battle hammer. And we're talking actual combat here, so its all to do with effectiveness. A knight may have carried a sword for all kinds of symbolic reasons (it was
the weapon of a knight, as I said, & the blade & hilts formed a nice 'Cross' shape for a Christian Knight) but on the field, particularly in the late medieval period when the development of plate armour had reached its apogee, it was fairly useless, & most knights would favour something with more weight & power like a poleaxe or battlehammer - remember, on the field you're not concerned with killing your opponents so much as with taking them out of the fight (they can be left to die, or despatched afterwards with a dagger). You'd go for something heavy which would do the job in as few blows as possible so that you could move on to the next guy.