You do this a lot, don't you? Say things that are 100% wrong and just shrug it off like it's other people's fault that they want to use words correctly.
You called an axe "bro, that's actually a bardiche". Doubly wrong because a) that's actually not a bardiche and b) a bardiche is actually an axe.
This is quite true. No one would bring an axe (or a sword) to counter an enemy lance charge.
This is quite true. No one would bring an axe (or a sword) to counter an enemy lance charge.
After the inital charge however, lances get dropped and it's chaos time. Either that or they used to go back and have their squire give them a new lance for the second charge.
Zelda?
That is very clearly a bardiche (which yes is a polearm derived from the axe but more suitable than the axe you've showed which is considerably more pointy), if not an axe with a straightened blade, which is a logical design choice that MIGHT prevent the axe from getting stuck in armour or the body, but even then I don't think you'll be able to pull it out unless your horse is stopped, at which point you're in even a worse situation.
Could follow literally every other sentence with that.
Cavalry is not an anti-armour unit they are shock troops, and if they're in an unfavourable situation they sure as hell won't be risking their horses and accept all the massive limitations of horseback vs on-foot combat, so they would dismount and continue that way, which they did. You're saying axes are good at armour penetration, great now let's look at all the alternatives or what the enemy frontline units would be equipped with: POLEARMS. MASSIVE POLEARMS. Pikes, Poleaxes, Halberds, Glaives etc they ALL provide the armour penetration you talked about but with far more advantages, your axe won't get you through those let alone your horse who is also a living being and is not suicidal. And they are made to specifically wreck heavy armoured opponents, what's the best way to do that? No it's not chopping or slashing or stabbing, it's blunt damage. A pole hammer or even a pole axe is great for this, because the pole axe also has a blunt hammer side, one decent hit to the head or well anywhere really is GONNA HURT. Even if you dismount you've no chance against those with an axe. And also axes were not the main weapons. It was spears and pikes, or later would be more common POLEARMS. Swords and sometimes axes were backup.
And your axe goes right with him.
An axe is for chopping not blunt damage which is what warhammers and maces are for, which are a thousand times more viable an option than axes. The primary weapon is either a lance or another polearm, and the secondary weapons are sword and a dagger. Think you got a little confused there.
Fighting other knights is not the primary function of a knight. And I think you're using the term "axe" very broadly as in you might be referring to other axe-like polearms such as the poleaxe and the bardiche?
there's this great new invention called the "scabbard" which makes it very easy and convenient to carry a sword on your waist.
I just find it funny when people say the Sturgians are like the nords, which they are. Big round shields, throwing axes and viking looking equipment and then someone comes and says nonono they are supposed to be kievan rus because they have drushniks and kievan rus population were Slavic (which they were) but their rulers were of scandinavian descent(read about Rurik dynasty). They were quickly assimilated into the local customs though some still continued speaking the Norse language for some generations after.So Vikings were from Denmark at the time, and in present day territories that overlap Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Kievan Rus were eastern slavs and eventually also Finnic peoples or "Varangians".
There is some debate as to whether or not Varangians from Finland are considered Vikings to this day...
"Controversy persists over whether the Rus' were Varangians (Vikings) or Slavs. This uncertainty is due largely to a paucity of contemporary sources. Attempts to address this question instead rely on archaeological evidence, the accounts of foreign observers, and legends and literature from centuries later.[24] To some extent the controversy is related to the foundation myths of modern states in the region.[25] According to the "Normanist" view, the Rus' were Scandinavians, while Russian and Ukrainian nationalist historians generally argue that the Rus' were themselves Slavs.[26][27][28] Normanist theories focus on the earliest written source for the East Slavs, the Primary Chronicle,[29] although even this account was not produced until the 12th century.[30] Nationalist accounts have suggested that the Rus' were present before the arrival of the Varangians,[31] noting that only a handful of Scandinavian words can be found in modern Russian and that Scandinavian names in the early chronicles were soon replaced by Slavic names.[32] Nevertheless, archaeological evidence from the area suggests that a Scandinavian population was present during the 10th century at the latest.[33] On balance, it seems likely that the Rus' proper were a small minority of Scandinavians who formed an elite ruling class, while the great majority of their subjects were Slavs.[32] Considering the linguistic arguments mounted by nationalist scholars, if the proto-Rus' were Scandinavians, they must have quickly become nativized, adopting Slavic languages and other cultural practices."
Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's pretty neat, I had no idea that a controversy even existed. I'll concede that what I wrote is not entirety accurate but equally so was your claim about them.
Glad someone agrees with me, I kept seeing too many people post they are not vikings without any counter argument.
