[Alina Boyden]

With all due respect, I don't think we can so easily categorize things as "one handed axes are inferior to swords." Swords are very versatile, but so are axes of all shapes and sizes. You can hook shields with the blade of an axe, something that can't be done with a sword for example.

That being said, there is often a saying that goes with armor - it is a trade off between protection and portability. The same is true of offensive weapons. There is a trade off between firepower (in every conceivable way) and portability. An axe might have more "firepower" than a sword, but it might also be a bit slower or perhaps less versatile. These are possibilities. The fact remains however that this trade off is a choice. So a swordsman who loses to an axeman with a single-handed axe doesn't have to be screwing up. He made a choice and decided that he would rather have greater speed and reach and better thrusting capability. This doesn't mean that the axeman made a poor choice when he selected a slower, more powerful weapon. So often, tastes are suited to the individual. One of my training partners works out a great deal and can bench press about 2.5x what I can. A one handed axe in his hands really won't be appreciably slower than an oakeshott type X in mine.

Humans aren't identical, that's why our weapons aren't identical. The axe certainly has deficiencies in certain areas, but it has compensating strengths in other areas. I don't think we can qualitatively decide that one weapon is inherently superior in a given situation because then we fail to take into account the human factor.

[Elling Polden]

While a full force swing with an axe would be able to do a substantial amount of damage to an armoured opponent, this kind of bow has a nasty tendency never to reach their target. They are usualy blocked before they get that far.

My impression and experience is that fighing take place either at spearlength, or in close combat. A fighter standing at sword/axelengt against an enemy armed with spears, will die quite quickly.
He will also have a hard time hurting anyone, because of the enemy shields.
He will thus either stay back, and focus on keeping his own spearmen alive, or enter close combat. (the romans opted for the later strategy when they stopped equiping the legions with Hasta)

The tendency when it comes to anti-armour hand sword are the ability to stab in close combat; short stabbing swords like the XIa, XIV, XV, and so on, as well as half sword techniques.
The anti armour impact weapons, such as maces or picks, are also quite short. My guess is that the mace or pick user would also go directly for a bind/grapple, to get his opponent into a position where he can hit him repeatedly in the head untill he stops moving. Manouverably and attack rate take priority over the power of the individual blows.

So, conversly, a short handled axe would be pretty effective against an armoured opponent, up close, hiting for the unprotected face and under the helmet.
If you stand at reach, your opponent is most likely going to block and close YOU.
On the other hand, much of the same effect can be achieved with the pommel of a sword...

Just my toughts on killing people in armour...

Yours
Elling

[Lloyd Clark]

If the networks would just pick up my idea for "Death Row Gladiators" we could have all the answers we need and a hit television show to boot

[Alexi Goranov]

[Alina Boyden]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Alina Boyden:

[Alexi Goranov]

[Alina Boyden]