Melee weapons and their clichés

[CASnelgrove]

Double-sided axes.

What's the other side for? The other side of the axe is just extra weight and encumbrance you put on it. Most of the time when you swing you'll turn your arms before the next swing so you'll automatically have your axe's side pointing at the right side. Also, if you swing it back to the other side without turning your arms, your blow will become much less harder and thus less effective because you can't use your shoulders enough to swing your arms. A pick as other side is acceptable.

The reason double sided axes most likely came into use is because, like a majority of other weapons, they were tools. As mentioned above a double sided axe was used to cut wood, and the lumberjack would switch blades when one grew dull rather than having to pause to sharpen. In war this remains true; a blunted blade acts as a mace would, but a sharpened blade with the same weight acts at a level higher than a mace. Were a man to survive long enough to blunt his axes blade and it was double sided he would then still be permitted to engage in successful combat rather than just wailing on someone.

Armor
This subject is a little more difficult, but it be overlooked. Ok, armors CAN be pierced, penetrated shattered, even with swords. There is NO such thing as "The unbreakable armor made by my father the blacksmith lalala...." Unless those armors are 'magically enchanted' they can be penetrated. A sword may be more unlikely to pierce it, but from a correct angle and a good blow, armor may just protect your life but not your flesh... Also, there are armor-piercing melee weapons, like axes, pickhammers, halberds, etc...
Armour ALWAYS has weak spots: Plate armour often leaves the armpits, neck and crotch open, mail armour can deflect sword slashes, but harder cuts especially from armor piercing weapons will shred that mail armour. Also, mail armour is more vulnerable to arrows.

But wouldn't you rather be guarded by plate when someone's bashing you in the chest with an axe? Maybe it's just me, but even if it's penetrable I'd like that little bit of extra defense. Lamelarr armour, such as scale mail, was the most effective at defense and it is still used as a basis for some armour today.

Shieldz

Give it up, shields are not entirely made out of iron, NEVER. Except some few exceptions like buckler shields, but they are thick and not suitable to cover from arrow fire.
Shields are most oftenly made out of wood with some leather over it. It stops arrows fairly well, but keep in mind that the more arrows your shield catches, the less able you'll be to use that shield. Those arrows replace the balance point of your shield, making it a LOT heavier. Shields eventually break too, especially when they get battered by a two hander axe or something brutally like that.

A wooden Linden shield was effective enough that it could catch bladed weapons, turn away blunted weapons and when braced with steel tangs survive a whole battle. Wood is superb at absorbing and releasing energy; wood fibers can stretch and pull so that the blow of the weapon is taken by the fibers not the user. Viking traditionally used these kinds of shield and they did quite well for themselves didn't they? (prior the conversion to christianity)

In regards to the argument for spears doing well against armour, I think the poster's above videos best demonstrates the usefulness of some, but not all spears. A simple leaf bladed spear for example does little against western medieval armour as it's likely to glance of, perhaps hook onto something but likely do little damage. Halberds, dagger-axes, pole-axes, the spear mentioned in the video above; these are all spears that handle armoured foes exceptionally well. But again a spear is limited in that in a clustered battle it becomes difficult to use.

Thus I think, personally, the war pick (the hammer and pick option) is the most effective in combat. Either end can brutalize armour, smashing in armour or piercing it completely and ringing the man inside. Not to mention against someone unarmoured it would do even more damage.

[Roran Hawkins]

Love it!

Also note: Blunt trauma:

If you take a hit to the chest, even with full plate armour from an axe, a sword, anything. You get hurt. The armour stops it from tearing your flesh, but even with padding a direct and clear hit will break bones, crush muscles, and so on due to blunt trauma. Throw jelly pudding in a palstic box against the wall. Even when the plastic box survives (=your armour) your pudding will be squashed. Now, the same is true for your inside when something hits your amazing steel chestplate with enough force.


PS: I have read a lot about medieval projectiles VS armour, and have conculded the following:



Piercing armour with projectiles

Bows:
They are in general poor against any form of armour from long ranges, but are still very effective due to blunt trauma, fear factor, and in 99% of the cases armour never covered all of the body. Thereby, an arrow to your leg stops you just as good as one to your hearth, it only doesn't pose such a lethal threat. Then again, if it penetrates armour it's often pretty bad. I've read a lot into this peculiar subject, and there are examples of both extremes:

Roman mailed cavalry shrugging off rains of arrows.
A mail armoured crusader king or commander that took an arrow into his armpit and penetrated straight through his chest, with the point protruding from the other armpit.

Crossbows:
Being far stronger but using heavier projectiles, they are better at penetrating armours, but have a lower arc when flying and alsoa shorter range. They are easy to wield, yet large and cumbersome, which will only get worse the stronger it gets. Forget about your AC wrist-mounted crossbow penetrating mail armour already, if you plan on reloading it with 1 hand only that is.

I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I read in books that Milanese armoursmiths (those who crafted full plate armours) always tested every armour by firing a crossbow bolt into them from point-blank range as a testing standard. If it penetrated, it was not good enough. (blunt traume would cause harm though)

Thrown weapons:
Thrown daggers DO NOT HURT ARMOUR. They're far too light to cause any serious form of blunt trauma, and they're useless against armour. Better keep the dagger and stab him in the weakspots.

Javelins and thrown axes: I don't know much about those.

[Durandal]

Alrighty, let's make a bit of a post here.

I study medieval history, armaments, and armor as a hobby, as I used to be a History major in college.

I also participate in SCA events, and do various other things.

So, allow me to give my own personal opinions on weaponry of the medieval era.

First off, I want to talk about Katanas.

I will not deny that Katanas are exceedingly well-crafted weaponry that stand the test of time. I will also not deny that a Katana, if used well, is a pretty good weapon to have. What I WILL deny, however, is this silly idea of a Katana being a godly armament that serves any purpose anywhere.

What one must realize is that the Katana is the product of Feudal Japan's system of warfare, which was much different than medieval Europe's style of warfare. Due to low amounts of metal, and the metal being present being of relatively low quality, there was much less of an emphasis on armor build-up. Katanas were rare, not just because they were well-made, but because of how likely it was that there was some imperfection in the metal that made it useless, or how very hard it was to make them in the first place with the poor quality materials on hand. Due to the lack of armor, it was designed, first and foremost, to act as a very good cutting weapon, due to the fact that they didn't really have much armor to get through. In addition, the Katana was more delegated as a side weapon to the more common spear or bow that the Samurai generally wielded. Indeed, an entire phase of Japanese warfare was characterized by mounted horse archery.

The myths surrounding the invincibility of the Katana mostly stemmed from 1800-1900's nationalistic propaganda that portrayed the Samurai as being invincible, godlike warriors.

Now, the next thing I'd like to talk about is armor.

Armor has been made from a large number of materials, and indeed, one of the most effective materials that has been discovered and used in battle is, surprisingly enough, paper stacked in layers. Originally used by the Chinese in the early ADs, Paper Armor had the unique quality of being both light enough to wear for long periods of time and supple enough to stop most blows. This is actually evidenced quite easily by phonebooks: Try ripping one in half or stabbing it. Rather hard, isn't it? It had the significant disadvantage of starting to dissolve whenever in water or rain, of course, in addition to paper being prohibitively expensive to create back in those days, but overall, it was remarkably effective against most armaments of the day.

Leather armor has an unfortunate rep these days due to the video game myth that "lol leather armor is weak". Leather armor, in addition to being light, was quite cheap, and more than sufficient to protect from minor blows in battles, being supple and bendable enough to stop blows. Leather remained a very popular armor material for most of the world's history, and that's because it worked.

Chain Mail.... God, don't even get me started on this stuff. The only thing Chainmail hauberks were effective at was stopping blade slashes, and even then, the whole force of the blow was transferred to to the wearer. Piercing weaponry and blunt force weapons simply ripped right through it, no problems whatsoever. The main reason this stuff stuck was because it was cheap to make in the early middle ages, and most nasty piercing and blunt weapons were still a bit away from development in the relevant battlezones of the day.

I'd like to elaborate on other types of Mail, however. Scale Mail is actually a remarkably effective type of armor, whether made of leather or metal, and that is because of the interlocking scales providing a flexible, yet rigid barrier against most forms of attack. Scale Mail IS more expensive to produce than other types of mail, but it makes up for it in terms of sheer protection. Lamellar (technically a type of mail) is, in my opinion, the second best type of medieval-style armor ever devised. The thin plates allow it to glance blows off of it, and when a solid blow does land, it is yielding enough to ensure that it disperses the force of the blow, rather than delivering it all full force to the wearer.

Now, the BEST medieval-style armor (Again, in my own opinion) is Brigandine Armor. Brigandine Armor is a development of the "Coat Of Plates" method of creating armor, which is where the idea of "Splint Mail" and "Banded Mail" came from. Brigandine Armor is represented in D&D mythology as Studded Leather Armor (What the HELL are a couple of studs on leather going to do?!), however, the studs are misinterpreted. The studs serve to attach metal plates to the backside of the leather or cloth armor, creating layers of protection that vary. In addition, the plates on the inside weren't visible to the enemy, making weaknesses and joints in the armor harder to find. Due to this hybrid construction, it didn't require as much heavy plating as, say, plate armor, allowing the wearer to have a lighter suit of armor that was still remarkably protective.

Now, let's talk about Plate Armor. Plate Armor is GREAT. Oh, my god, you have no idea how great this stuff is. Not only are well-designed suits of plate armor designed to glance blows away from impact zones, in addition to providing stellar resistance against most blows attempted on it, but later examples even had the capability of surviving gun fire without harm.

[Black Dragon]

Very quickly I have to weigh.

While I agree with you on some points, I have to disagree on the point about the axe.

1. The extra edge on these sorts of weapons are meant to give an extra striking edge so the user doesn't have to waste time turning his arm to strike again.
2. The extra edge, while doesn't always get the killing blow, allows the user to strike at angles he wouldn't get with a single edge blade.
3. However, being able to strike effectively with the back edge does take a good degree of wrist strength and control, hence these styles of weapons are reserved for more advanced fighters, especially in Chinese swordsmanship.

[Roran Hawkins]

Most of the time when you swing you'll turn your arms before the next swing so you'll automatically have your axe's side pointing at the right side. Also, if you swing it back to the other side without turning your arms, your blow will become much less harder and thus less effective because you can't use your shoulders enough to swing your arms. A pick as other side is acceptable.

1, 2 and 3) You automatically turn your arm, since a backhanded swing with such a weapon is extremely slow and cumbersome, not even minding that it's very weak.

And this completely nullified your point already...

[Faen]

Just came across this, and many of you have very valid points. So let me add a few if I may.

Katana: It is a great weapon unless of course your opponent is wearing armor. Which guess what? Most folks in that area didn't simply because it was not good armor. Those that wore armor were the upper middle class. So that is why the Katana gained it's reputation. Now mind you the katana's of today (If they are actual katana's and made properly) are FAAAAR superior to the ones the samurai used.

Daggers: Why oh why would you bring a dagger? I mean seriously unless you are in a knife fight they offer little offensive capability. You can of course throw them, but if your weapon isn't made specifically for throwing. You'd be better off just punching them or kicking your opponent.

Bows: Amazing weapons, I love them. Want to know why? If you are a good enough shot, it doesn't matter what armor your opponent is wearing. Simply because the area's that aren't protected....that's right. The eye's. Mind you, you would have have to be an incredible marksman or just really friggin' lucky.

Crossbows: I hate them, cumbersome, heavy, pain in the ass to reload. Essentially unless you have the time to reload...don't use it. Unless you want to smack someone with your crossbow.

Two-Handed Swords: Colossal pains in the....arms. That's right folks, unless you plan on finishing the battle in the first 3-4 hits. Do not use.

Swords: Trusty, reliable, practical, and useful. Very useful and durable. Love them.

Knifes: Never bring a knife...well always have your knife handy. A knife and a sword will serve you very well.

Guns: I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE guns. They are loud. They give you away almost instantly. Yes they are almost guaranteed one hit kills *Again if you can aim properly* but they are so overly used. A well placed arrow will kill anyone. Plus leave you hidden.

Axes: My friends, now mind you i'm not talking about great axes. Nope, a hatchet/tomahawk these brilliant weapons allow you to dual-wield efficiently and they pierce armor *Don't believe me? Try it!* You can throw them and probably kill your target. Plus they are just great for splitting wood.

Axes cont.: I don't like great axes, they wear you out quicker then your two-handed swords.

Kunai: Great if you're opponents aren't armored. Otherwise they are good for marking trails.

If I missed anything I'm sorry. These are just my opinions, I've practiced with most of the weapons mentioned. This is my personal experiences.

*Note: I am 6' 2" and semi-built. You're results may vary. Do not practice without guidance. You will do more damage to yourself and may lose a limb or some extremities*

[Roran Hawkins]

I agree on most, but a dagger can be useful, but not as you say it. A dagger is very useful as a last attempt weapon and is very good for using against unarmed foes. In a pinch on a battlefield while more wrestling and rolling around than actually fighting, a dagger is perfect.

Crossbows have what bows lack: accuracy and punch without extensive training.

[Durandal]

.... I have to extensively disagree with Faen on a number of points.

I've practiced with a number of (admittedly, mostly european) weapons myself, and there are a couple of major differences in my findings.

Daggers are extremely effective for their intended purpose, as a weapon of last resort, and as a stabbing weapon that can get through armor at very close ranges. Trained users with a dagger could likely take down a knight in full armor, just by getting in too close for him to effectively use his bigger weapon, and stabbing repeatedly at the weak points.

Bows, although effective, became out of date for a reason: They require training, training, training, and even more training to hit targets accurately with the bows of the time. Hitting targets accurately with the most common warbow, the Longbow, wasn't even attempted, and most shooters instead shot for "clout", which means a general area, rather than precision marksmanship, due to inferior materials.

Crossbows are remarkably effective, due to the fact that they pierce armor just as well as a Longbow, but don't require training to use, are cheaper to craft, and began the end of the career of the medieval knight.

Two-Handed swords were designed to serve a purpose. That purpose was, most commonly, as a shock weapon, a weapon to break apart formations and dice up the enemy. It served that purpose with great distinction, thus their enduring legacy. Swords (if you buy correctly) aren't actually that heavy, and the average two-handed sword wouldn't've weighed more than, say, 8-9 pounds, certainly light enough to swing around for long periods of time.

Swords in general were useful in earlier stages of combat, when armor was light, but as armor improved, the sword became less of a feasible weapon and more of a sidearm or status symbol, due to the lack of effectiveness of their cutting edges against heavier armor types. You can certainly stab with one, yes, but that takes great amounts of skill and precision to catch the joints in armor, and most soldiery (and nobles, for that matter) simply didn't want to waste time with a weapon that required great mastery when you can use a weapon that is much simpler and much more effective.

Knives are useless in battle. Never bring a knife. Daggers are a different story.

Guns. There is a reason why guns dominate the battlefield. They are cheap. They are ridiculously easy to use. And one shot from one can cripple an opponent nigh instantly. Aiming properly isn't a problem: You literally just point the barrel, and bang. It's not hard. At all.

Axes in general are excellent weapons for armor piercing or overall killing the crap out of your opponent.

Great-axes of the type most people expect never really existed, even for the Vikings. The closest weapon to a Greataxe would have to be the Danish Axe, which was more properly a polearm, its purpose to chop overhead of the men in front of you in a shield wall instead of engaging in outright combat.

Keep Kunai as farm tools, like they belong.

[Dervish]

Just came across this, and many of you have very valid points. So let me add a few if I may.

Katana: It is a great weapon unless of course your opponent is wearing armor. Which guess what? Most folks in that area didn't simply because it was not good armor. Those that wore armor were the upper middle class. So that is why the Katana gained it's reputation. Now mind you the katana's of today (If they are actual katana's and made properly) are FAAAAR superior to the ones the samurai used.

Daggers: Why oh why would you bring a dagger? I mean seriously unless you are in a knife fight they offer little offensive capability. You can of course throw them, but if your weapon isn't made specifically for throwing. You'd be better off just punching them or kicking your opponent.

Bows: Amazing weapons, I love them. Want to know why? If you are a good enough shot, it doesn't matter what armor your opponent is wearing. Simply because the area's that aren't protected....that's right. The eye's. Mind you, you would have have to be an incredible marksman or just really friggin' lucky.

Crossbows: I hate them, cumbersome, heavy, pain in the ass to reload. Essentially unless you have the time to reload...don't use it. Unless you want to smack someone with your crossbow.

Two-Handed Swords: Colossal pains in the....arms. That's right folks, unless you plan on finishing the battle in the first 3-4 hits. Do not use.

Swords: Trusty, reliable, practical, and useful. Very useful and durable. Love them.

Knifes: Never bring a knife...well always have your knife handy. A knife and a sword will serve you very well.

Guns: I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE guns. They are loud. They give you away almost instantly. Yes they are almost guaranteed one hit kills *Again if you can aim properly* but they are so overly used. A well placed arrow will kill anyone. Plus leave you hidden.

Axes: My friends, now mind you i'm not talking about great axes. Nope, a hatchet/tomahawk these brilliant weapons allow you to dual-wield efficiently and they pierce armor *Don't believe me? Try it!* You can throw them and probably kill your target. Plus they are just great for splitting wood.

Axes cont.: I don't like great axes, they wear you out quicker then your two-handed swords.

Kunai: Great if you're opponents aren't armored. Otherwise they are good for marking trails.

If I missed anything I'm sorry. These are just my opinions, I've practiced with most of the weapons mentioned. This is my personal experiences.

*Note: I am 6' 2" and semi-built. You're results may vary. Do not practice without guidance. You will do more damage to yourself and may lose a limb or some extremities*

Katanas are excellent slashing weapons, as mentioned, and are sharp and strong enough to pierce through many kinds of armour, even it wasn't its intended function. Overall, they are fantastic swords that are effective in a wide variety of circumstances.

Daggers are meant to be a last resort weapon, and sword fights weren't generally people doing fancy parrying and blocking other weapons with their sword, Hollywood style, because that's a great way to have it break before too long or even disarm you. It's why shields were invented. If things literally get to the point of hand to hand, having something that can be used to pierce joints in armour or even pierce it is an invaluable advantage.

Bow are fantastic weapons but require a huge amount of training to use effectively, and given how a lot of armies didn't tend to be filled with overly trained people who may as well have been peasants (they often were) during times of war where fighting men were drawn from their lands, it takes a long time to properly train someone to be effective with a bow, and back when bows were used in warfare, they didn't have the fancy sighting apparatus they do with modern hunting bows. Usually people would be satisfied with earning a hit, and there's a reason archers were used in groups for volley fire, same as muskets when gunpowder became prevalent. Also, because they don't have the report of a firearm doesn't mean you don't necessarily know where it's coming from. They have limited range, they can be seen in the air, and when they hit something, they kind of provide a handy indication where they came from. Sure, lone people, fine. But if there's more than one person in the group being attacked? They'll find out soon enough where you're coming from. It also involves exaggerated movement to use, and movement is the primary reason things are seen, even when hiding. And you have to stand to use a bow effectively, that severely limits your cover and concealment.

Crossbows don't have to be heavy, or overly difficult to reload. Some, like the goat leg design, could be reloaded by pulling back a lever very quickly. Otherwise, you plant the front into the ground and pull the string back with both hands. Slow, yes. Cumbersome, definitely. But they don't require as much training to learn how to use and you don't have to maintain arm strength the accurately aim it once it's loaded, since the tension on the string is being held by a mechanism. In many applications, they were superior to bows and you could train and field an army with them a lot easier, and it's not as strenuous because you don't have to physically hold the string back, which may rely greatly on someone's strength and endurance. They certainly have practical uses, if they didn't, they would have never been popular.

Two handed/long swords/ great swords are something you can train with endurance, and you have a lot more weight and momentum behind the strikes, as well as longer reach. Physically powerful people can maintain the strength and endurance to use these effectively, but it doesn't defend you nearly as well as someone with a shield and kind of negates formations like a short sword and shield enables.

Short swords are versatile and overall very effective, you just have limited range and need to have means of defending yourself, but the amount of applications can't be denied. Although, they're more expensive to make and take a fair deal more training to use than a polearm, for instance. Nothing's scarier than a formation of trained spearmen with shields.

Knives, depends on what they are. Can serve similar functions to daggers, but honestly depends if they're designed to penetrate.

Guns: There's a reason they're the dominant weapon on the planet since they came along. Armour was made useless against it, they out range anything that fires an arrow and a bolt, and once rifling was invented, can be quite accurate and are devastating in groups, as the Japanese found out when the Americans came over to "modernize" their country with Americanized customs and modern technology. Wars aren't quiet affairs, and the loud report of gunfire can be demoralizing for the enemy. Plus, there's a thing called triangulation. Firing one gunshot will almost never give someone away, since the sound can feel like it's coming from everywhere if it's close enough. Multiple rounds being fired will eventually reveal the location of the shooter, but you will not see the round coming at you. It's moving too damn fast. They also aren't necessarily a 'one hit kill'. They can be, but like most things, if it's not in a vital organ or an artery, it won't likely kill you immediately. Most gunshot fatalities are from infection. Take it from a guy who was in the military, there's a reason they're what everybody uses in warfare these days instead of anarchic weapons. Many modern military forces don't even have bayonet lugs on their rifles anymore. And back in the muzzle-loader days of matchlock, wheel lock, and flint lock weaponry, they became effective spears with a bayonet that has a longer reach than a sword, which at the time was mainly still holding on for naval boarding actions and cavalry charges, which often didn't offer a chance to reload their pistols in close quarters. "Overly used" doesn't apply to warfare, except if it doesn't work. You field an army with the best weapons and equipment your can afford, and that involves anything with gunpowder these days. Sorry, but this is supposed to be about melee weapons, not firearms.

Axes, hatchets and tomahawks make excellent throwing weapons, but they would have a hell of a time piercing some armour. Fortunately, most of the enemies that the natives who used these kinds of weapons used either had no armour or light armour. Good luck piercing plate armour with it. As for dual wielding, there's a reason it's not a widely used practice. You can't defend yourself as well, because anyone using a two handed weapon will have more power behind their blows than you'll be able to block with one hand, and without a shield, you leave yourself unprotected. If you tried to block a sword with a tomahawk handle, it'll probably knock it right out of your hand, cut through the wood enough to make it unusable or even right in half, and still have enough momentum to go on to hit the wielder. Axes are generally lighter than swords, because they are less metal and more shaft, but their weight distribution is towards the end of the weapon instead of towards the grip. This allows for a lot more force with your blows, and the shape of axes can be used for hooking, pulling, and grappling, something a sword can't really do. They can also pierce armour much easier due to their design and the previously mentioned force behind each blow. They're also cheaper to make, so there's that. Also, a lot of axes have a spike of sorts on the oppose end of the blade, the narrow surface area means great penetration power, although you could get stuck doing that. Still, the option is there. Honestly, I like axes a lot more than swords, but that is not to say swords aren't fantastic and can be just as effective, if not more so, than axes in some circumstances.

A kunai has it's purposes, but seriously, it's kind of like a dagger.

Durandal, as a point, firearms aren't typically as simple as 'point the stick and pull the trigger'. If you're not prepared for the recoil, you won't hit anything, and shooting anything at a distance can be difficult, like any ranged weapon. Yes, it requires less training than a bow or crossbow, but it's not exactly idiot proof to be effective. Try to hit a target at 100 meters with open sights, you'll see what I mean. Or accurately, for that matter. Shot placement matters.

[MorningWood]

I'm going to change the original post one of these days. It is incomplete, to be honest.