Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

I have little to no hands on experience with either but I remember watching a show on History/Discovery/PBS or somesuch about an army in northern Europe (Vikings?) armed predominately with axes and how this gave them quite an edge vs. the armies they faced (armed with spears/swords and shields). But I'm sure I'm forgetting details and the era of armor has a great deal to do with it as well.

 

I remember seeing that show too. I think it was Conquest, a show that was on the History Channel a few years back. I thought it was a good show, but it was gone after one season. He was doing the same kind of stuff they do on the Ultimate Warrior, but without the hype and video game tie-in. Bad marketing I guess.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_%28documentary%29

[Vulcan]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Except: Handaxes for use on the battlefield didn't weigh 4-5 pounds. They weighed 2-3 pounds. Why? Because anything heavier gets harder to swing over time, and most actual battles lasted for hours, possibly over several days.

They were, however, still incredibly effective. Studies of bodies found in archeological digs at battlefield sites in Europe showed that a hand axe could cut through a man's arm, chain mail and leather hauberk and all.

 

Which only emphasises my point that an axe can do significant damage. A sword of the same weight is going to rely on the stab to be deadly; it isn't going to chop worth a damn against even a lightly armored target even if you hit squarely, whereas the axe... remains a large mass on the end of a stick, much like a hammer.

[Susano]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Sorry, most swords are just as much cutting as they are stabbing weapons. And most period combat swords are only 2-4 pounds.

[Markdoc]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Which only emphasises my point that an axe can do significant damage. A sword of the same weight is going to rely on the stab to be deadly; it isn't going to chop worth a damn against even a lightly armored target even if you hit squarely' date=' whereas the axe... remains a large mass on the end of a stick, much like a hammer.[/quote']

 

Which is why the sword never became a preferred weapon on the battlefield .... oh, wait. Swords actually slash very effectively - indeed, some swords like sabres and katanas were designed specifically for slashing. The "drawing cut" where you combine a slicing movement with a slash will cut far deeper and wider than an axeblade will - and I've actually tied this one myself, on flesh (cow, not person ). It works. According to contemporary records, effectively used, swords would cut through non-metal armours more effectively than axes, even if they lacked the impact.

 

cheers, Mark

[LordGhee]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

according to accounts the Macedonians where horrified by the devastating wounds that the Roman's short swords gave (lots of arms chopped off) at the battle of Pydna 148BC.

 

Short history

 

up until 3000 BC the main close combat weapons where the mace, the dagger and the spear.

then around this time a new powerful new mace appeared and spread around the Levant the pear form know as a pieriform which allowed a solid attachment to the handle. The mace is the first weapon that is considered to have been invented to kill one fellows better. The head blow is not unlikely to be recovered from where a stab can be treated. One reason it is the symbol of the Kings justice from that time. the ax came in next as the hand weapon of choice as armor piercing forms came in. From these the sickle sword was developed. just as deadly at chopping but handier. the sword is the second weapon developed to kill one fellows easier. As metals got better the straight sword arrived.

 

If a sword was not a better weapon than an ax then it would never have replaced it as the hand weapon of choice for 4000 years.

 

With an ax you can chop or bash. with a sword you can chop, stab, slice and bash. Same amount of metal with the sword harder to make. The greater choices with a sword makes it a better weapon to use with a shield as you can reduce your chance of getting hit.

 

just as a mention all warriors used a spear as their first weapon as the reach reduce your vulnerably in combat. Samurai used spears when at war as did the Greeks, the Normans, vikings and all armies in Europe after 1500.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Except' date=' I really don't see how hitting anything with the flat of the axe is going to be all that useful. It's not very balanced that way.[/quote']

 

Also, all of the impact is spread over a large area. The hammer is designed to concentrate all of it's mass on a relatively small cross section.

[The Weapon]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

What if you had a telescoping axe handle such that the axe head was right by your hand' date=' then as you swung it, the haft would extend so as to reach full length by the time of impact? Would this inflict the same damage as a standard axe while being easier to swing? Or would there be less force behind the head?[/quote']

 

Nope, the axe going out would slow down it's angular momentum by the same amount as the increased radius increased it. It's like figure skaters, as their moment of inertia gets less they speed up, when they want to slow down they let their arms or legs go out. You can't create free velocity out of nowhere.

[The Weapon]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Swords tended to lean towards precision kill tactics because they were effectivly useless against Armor. Axes, on the other hand, even if they bounced off the shell, did BAD things to what was inside (flails even more so).

 

Rubbish, depending on the sword they were quite good against armor. Any amount of kinetic energy, momentum, moment of inertia and concentration of same in a small area you can get in an axe you can get in a sword. Plenty of swords were designed and used by professionals for anti-armor work. Few medieval militaries would have optimized their weapons against unarmored foes (if you're fighting someone without armor, they're almost certainly bad fighters and you're going to win anyway) yet they all used swords, why? Because swords are fine against armor. Not as good as Locheber axes but then most of your army don't have the strength or skill to use those.

[Markdoc]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Rubbish' date=' depending on the sword they were quite good against armor. Any amount of kinetic energy, momentum, moment of inertia and concentration of same in a small area you can get in an axe you can get in a sword.[/quote']

 

Not true. Even if the weapons are the same mass, the axe has its mass concentrated at the end of the lever arm - moreover, axeblades are thicker than swordblades, with a much decreased angle of attack on the blade. They're designed to put the mass and impact at the point of maximum leverage. Swords aren't. Anyone with experience with swords will tell you that hitting a hard target with the tip of the blade (to maximize leverage) is a great way to break your blade (and inefficient to boot).

 

You don't chop with a sword the way you do with an axe - the two weapons use entirely different techniques, which a great deal of work went into optimising.

 

Plenty of swords were designed and used by professionals for anti-armor work.

 

Yes, but not by hacking. Against a heavily armoured foe, you thrust, going for the weak spots. Remember the old adage: "The edge wounds. The point kills" That's made plain by surviving fechtbuch and also by contemporary accounts.

 

Few medieval militaries would have optimized their weapons against unarmored foes (if you're fighting someone without armor' date=' they're almost certainly bad fighters and you're going to win anyway) yet they all used swords, why? Because swords are fine against armor. Not as good as Locheber axes but then most of your army don't have the strength or skill to use those.[/quote']

 

There's lots of other reasons to carry swords - which is why they continued in use, long after they had ceased to have any battlefield utility at all. Polish Lancers carried swords into battle in WW2, and I assure you it's not because swords are good against tanks. They were a sign of the warrior/ruling class, in most societies for a start: a status item. The relative weakness of the sword against heavily armoured foes was why in the late medieval period, knights began to relegate it to a secondary weapon, using poleweapons, axes and maces as their primary, if they expected cose combat with retinue troops. And we can be certain that the scots didn't use Lochaber axes because they required more skill and strength than a sword, anymore than the Leidang did, or indeed, the many peasant armies who used polearms. It was was because they were cheap. Scots warriors wealthy enough usually ditched the axe for sword and targe.

 

cheers, Mark

[Susano]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but one reason to use a sword over an axe is that a sword is far better for defense, making it a more well-rounded weapon.

[Susano]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Not true. Even if the weapons are the same mass' date=' the axe has its mass concentrated at the end of the lever arm - moreover, axeblades are thicker than swordblades, with a much decreased angle of attack on the blade. They're designed to put the mass and impact at the point of maximum leverage. Swords aren't. Anyone with experience with swords will tell you that hitting a hard target with the tip of the blade (to maximize leverage) is a great way to break your blade (and inefficient to boot).[/quote']

 

Correct. With SCA rattan swords, the "sweet spot" is about 2/3 up from the hilt.

[Markdoc]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Correct. With SCA rattan swords' date=' the "sweet spot" is about 2/3 up from the hilt.[/quote']

 

With real swords, too. A sword simply isn't an impact weapon, and there are plenty of youtube videos of guys breaking expensive swords by hitting things with the upper part of the blade: real sword training involves teaching as one of the first lessons that you simply don't do that. I've seen aikidokas break very substantial bokken simply by striking a tanran with the upper quarter of the blade - and a tanran is designed to give.

Secondly, a sword is a cutting weapon - it's designing for slicing - not hacking - and thrusting, anyway. Use it like an axe and you'll end up holding the hilt and a stump of blade in very short order.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Which is easier to swing, an axe or a sword?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong' date=' Mark, but one reason to use a sword over an axe is that a sword is far better for defense, making it a more well-rounded weapon.[/quote']

 

I think it's probably fair to say it's better for passive defence (and it is a more rounded weapon). You can defend with an axe, but your defence has to be active - you need to keep your opponent at a distance, utilising your superior reach. But that's more exhausting. As far as we can tell warriors who utilised two handed axes a lot had two strategies - professional armoured warriors like the huscarls also inevitably carried a sword (and usually a big knife too and a spear too!). We don't know a lot about combat from the era, but as far as we can work out, they used the axe for assault, but preferred the spear for standing on defence. In either case, once the fight closed, it became blade work. In the case of unarmoured warriors like the Irish or the scots, a lot of fights tended to be over fairly swiftly - you essentially have two guys in long T-shirts with heavy, broad-bladed sharp axes. The first clash of battle usually turned to rout (or at the least tactical withdrawals) by whoever was getting the worst of it - typically battle sites from those eras are marked by lost of people with injuries to their backs, presumably cut down as they ran. The Anglo-norman chroniclers recorded that the scots and irish were ferocious in attack, but would simply give up and run if you could resist their charge, which matches this pattern.

 

cheers, Mark