This game is so unrealistic

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

You get the idea.
You could just google about the long history of horseman battle axes instead of asking other people to do it for you.

I'm gonna be straight with you and ask "are you daft?" I've already stated multiple times I'm arguing whether axes are worth it over other alternatives and not the simple question of "were they ever used at all" which has already been answered clearly in the first five comments. Thank you very much for your useless and noncontributing comment you may leave or take part in this friendly discussion.

 

[NA1F]

CHAAAARGE !!!

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

How are battle axes less advantageous? Late medieval knights mostly used maces, warhammers, flails, battleaxes, estocs and daggers to fight other armoured knights.

Check back to previous comments please.

 

[TurtleFactz]

Tie that in with my other comment:

Cavalry (the original "knights") and especially their horses were a big investment for an army, I do not think you would be risking someone you've invested so much in time and money make himself useless with an inherently disadvantagous weapon.

Few misconceptions here.

Cavalry are not knights. Knights are almost always nobles and made up a very small minority within an army's forces. You can say that within the cavalry the "ultimate" in heavy cavalry were the knights with their top tier equipment and steed, but they weren't the majority.

Also it wasn't like modern times where you have professional armies paid for by the state. Soldiers were pretty much expected to bring all their own equipment and pay for everything themselves (even though most of them were poor as ****) except for food and drink. Cavalry were not an investment for armies outside of maybe extra food you'd have to give the horses.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

Few misconceptions here.

Cavalry are not knights. Knights are almost always nobles and made up a very small minority within an army's forces. You can say that within the cavalry the "ultimate" in heavy cavalry were the knights with their top tier equipment and steed, but they weren't the majority.

Also it wasn't like modern times where you have professional armies paid for by the state. Soldiers were pretty much expected to bring all their own equipment and pay for everything themselves (even though most of them were poor as ****) except for food and drink. Cavalry were not an investment for armies outside of maybe extra food you'd have to give the horses.

*buzz* Wrong. The original "knight" comes from the French "chevalier (later 'cavalier')" which meant the horseman. Instead of typing out a whole lecture I will link this video that explains it all simply:

 

[Rafalongo]

It was not uncommon in the medieval ages at all, there were even axes made expressly for this purpose.

"Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, used an axe to defeat Henry de Bohun in single combat at the start of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Given that Bruce was wielding the axe on horseback, it is likely that it was a one handed horseman's axe. They enjoyed a sustained revival among heavily armored equestrian combatants in the 15th century. "

Battle axe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I could hear from here a hole closing.

 

[Matador234]

Those are bardiches my dude not axes.

Please stop talking. You clearly have no idea what you're saying.

I'm gonna be straight with you and ask "are you daft?" I've already stated multiple times I'm arguing whether axes are worth it over other alternatives and not the simple question of "were they ever used at all" which has already been answered clearly in the first five comments. Thank you very much for your useless and noncontributing comment you may leave or take part in this friendly discussion.

First you say only a retard would use an axe from horseback - People showed you examples of such uses.
Then you asked for more - People showed you more.
Then you said "well, I still think battleaxes are stupid because that's my opinion" - People tried to explain to you why battleaxes were chosen in certain circumstances.
Then you finally resort to calling other people daft, because yes.

Battleaxes were used quite extensively by cavalry all the way to 17th century England. You think you know better than the military experts of the time who were trusting their lives on those axes. Ok.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

Please stop talking. You clearly have no idea what you're saying.

First you say only a retard would use an axe from horseback - People showed you examples of such uses.
Then you asked for more - People showed you more.
Then you said "well, I still think battleaxes are stupid because that's my opinion" - People tried to explain to you why battleaxes were chosen in certain circumstances.
Then you finally resort to calling other people daft, because yes.

Battleaxes were used quite extensively by cavalry all the way to 17th century England. You think you know better than the military experts of the time who were trusting their lives on those axes. Ok.

Mate I think you missed the whole poing of the original post, it was a sarcastic comment and I followed along making a semi-ironic comment. It turned into a friendly discussion from there, to which you are not contributing by simply insulting. I will do as you did and ask you to please stop speaking unless you are going to contribute to anything. Thanks again.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Let’s get back to the fact that Sturgians are Rus inspired.

Those were the guys that used flails!!

Lets get some in game already!!

 

[Rafalongo]

*buzz* Wrong. The original "knight" comes from the French "chevalier (later 'cavalier')" which meant the horseman. Instead of typing out a whole lecture I will link this video that explains it all simply:

LOL, his argument was that since knights appear in the high middle ages, being the warriors on horseback elite, this means that chivalry and knight are the same xd

 

[Matador234]

Mate I think you missed the whole poing of the original post, it was a sarcastic comment and I followed along making a semi-ironic comment. It turned into a friendly discussion from there, to which you are not contributing by simply insulting. I will do as you did and ask you to please stop speaking unless you are going to contribute to anything. Thanks again.

Wait what? I insulted you? I thought it was you who called me daft after I showed you a bunch of historical representations of mounted battle axe use.
Not that I care what some random dude calls me on the internet. I just thought it was funny.

If your original post was ironic why are you defending your nonsense so vehemently and calling other people daft?
Also, again I think you're saying things without knowing what you're talking about - do you know the meaning of "ironic"?

 

[Ogagon]

隐藏: This is the man who's chickens you've murdered, you, ANIMAL!

And it's almost harvesting season!

 

[TurtleFactz]

*buzz* Wrong. The original "knight" comes from the French "chevalier (later 'cavalier')" which meant the horseman. Instead of typing out a whole lecture I will link this video that explains it all simply:

I don't understand why the origin of the word knight has any relevance, we're talking about the contemporary word right? My point was that armies were not the ones investing in cavalry, the cavalry were and that the cavalry were not all knights with all their wealth and top tier equipment.

 

[Ggoddkkiller]

Cavalry (the original "knights") and especially their horses were a big investment for an army, I do not think you would be risking someone you've invested so much in time and money make himself useless with an inherently disadvantagous weapon. There were formations using very specific polearms and having very specific uses in a battle, you would have a very limited range of arms to choose from since you have a specific role in the fight and there are only so many options that can effectively perform the said duty.
Edit: btw I'm not advocating for axes to get nerfed in the game lol, this is more friendly theorising and brainstorming about medieval warfare etc.

You are logical but you are missing the problem that those knights were mostly nobles from wealthy families who often ignored even direct orders from their commanders which sometimes resulted not only their death also even entire army getting slaughtered like battle of Nicopolis where entire crusader army got destroyed by Turks or worse French knights even attacked their own infantry during battle of Clercy against Brits and kept charging 15 times against a heavily fortified enemy like headless chickens which resulted entire French army getting slaughtered at the end!! Often knights are falsely portrayed as extremely disciplined elite force today but in reality they were just terrible sometimes, especially when they loose their horses against longbowmen or horse archers...

 

[Matador234]

*buzz* Wrong. The original "knight" comes from the French "chevalier (later 'cavalier')" which meant the horseman. Instead of typing out a whole lecture I will link this video that explains it all simply:

Actually the original knight comes from the greek hippeis and roman equites class, but I think you both agree on the same stuff. Not all cavalry were knights and not all knights fought on horse all the time.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

Wait what? I insulted you? I thought it was you who called me daft after I showed you a bunch of historical representations of mounted battle axe use.
Not that I care what some random dude calls me on the internet. I just thought it was funny.

If your original post was ironic why are you defending your nonsense so vehemently and calling other people daft?
Also, again I think you're saying things without knowing what you're talking about - do you know the meaning of "ironic"?

Jesus Mary and Joseph, my friend please, you are refusing to try and understand my point of view. I did not directly call you a daft though you may say that was an offensive tone I talked in, and even so I was under the impression that you were not actually adding something to the discussion, if you'd read the previous comments I don't think you would've posted that comment to begin with as it was irrelevant, hence I was bothered believing that you hadn't paid attention to the context and tried to correct you.
It was semi ironic, which is a phrase I've used to mean "truth presented in a sarcastic manner", and when a fellow tried to correct me with real historical sources it turned into a semi-historical discussion which you can clearly see. You claimed I didn't know what I was talking, which could very well be considered an insult, even though I realize I can be mistaken, you have not yet proven that, I don't think.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

You are logical but you are missing the problem that those knights were mostly nobles from wealthy families who often ignored even direct orders from their commanders which sometimes resulted not only their death also even entire army getting slaughtered like battle of Nicopolis where entire crusader army got destroyed by Turks or worse French knights even attacked their own infantry during battle of Clercy against Brits and kept charging 15 times against a heavily fortified enemy like headless chickens which resulted entire French army getting slaughtered at the end!! Often knights are falsely portrayed as extremely disciplined elite force today but in reality they were just terrible sometimes, especially when they loose their horses against longbowmen or horse archers...

You are very correct my friend, we can agree on that. Important emphasize that not all knights were late-ottoman janissaries though.

 

[Ted Striker]

It was not uncommon in the medieval ages at all, there were even axes made expressly for this purpose.

"Robert the Bruce, King of Scotland, used an axe to defeat Henry de Bohun in single combat at the start of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Given that Bruce was wielding the axe on horseback, it is likely that it was a one handed horseman's axe. They enjoyed a sustained revival among heavily armored equestrian combatants in the 15th century. "

Battle axe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So wait are they trying to say that people didn't use two handed executioner axes on horseback?

 

[Shadesmar]

Haha then you're in even a worse situation with an axe, as your opponent will be armed with something like a long lance that can multiply its force combined with the horse's speed. An axe is not helping you with that one, unless you throw it but it's unlikely you'll hit him, even if you do it's prolly gonna be the blunt wooden side.

Thats wrong. u can use the momentum of the horse quite well with an axe. And in melee on horseback its gold, especially when u have the better horse and can catch up from the back to another horseman. If they happen to have lances they are helpless in that situation. U just need to maneuver around them evading the first charge. Good vs small groups of horsemen.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

Thats wrong. u can use the momentum of the horse quite well with an axe. And in melee on horseback its gold, especially when u have the better horse and can catch up from the back to another horseman. If they happen to have lances they are helpless in that situation. U just need to maneuver around them evading the first charge. Good vs small groups of horsemen.

That is assuming the horse- axemen have the overall advantage in the first place. And no an axe will definitely not help against a lance which has like twice or thrice the reach of an axe.