FW/Black Library confusion.

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

And yet again, you're incorrect. The original post was about the rules for specific weapons versus how marines are equipped in the novels. As always, you managed to find a way to shoehorn in your agenda about the geneseed propagation and the crime of weakening the legend of the XIII Legion in your opinion.

 

http://i.imgur.com/y8Ea8jB.gif

[Cleanse And Purify]

Giving an army associated with versatility and technique a signature unit all armed with axes was the fault of the 4th Edition Codex Space Marines (no surprise, written by someone with a deep dislike for classical Ultramarines), not the FW guys, so this does not really belong here.

 

 

 

I don't know if you've ever actually used an axe as a weapon, but they are in fact versatile and, as all weapons do, they require a great amount of technique to use correctly. So perhaps consider your own biases, and your potential lack of experience and knowledge, before making complaints about the direction the background takes. Indeed, I think it makes the Ultramarines appear more versatile in that they appreciate the usefulness of weapons beyond the gladius, and recognize that simply because they are "Romans...IN SPAAAACE" doesn't mean they can't look at one of the most widely-used and effective weapons in history (the axe) and say "y'know, we could do things with that. Great things."

[Arkangilos]

 

Giving an army associated with versatility and technique a signature unit all armed with axes was the fault of the 4th Edition Codex Space Marines (no surprise, written by someone with a deep dislike for classical Ultramarines), not the FW guys, so this does not really belong here.

 

 

 

I don't know if you've ever actually used an axe as a weapon, but they are in fact versatile and, as all weapons do, they require a great amount of technique to use correctly. So perhaps consider your own biases, and your potential lack of experience and knowledge, before making complaints about the direction the background takes. Indeed, I think it makes the Ultramarines appear more versatile in that they appreciate the usefulness of weapons beyond the gladius, and recognize that simply because they are "Romans...IN SPAAAACE" doesn't mean they can't look at one of the most widely-used and effective weapons in history (the axe) and say "y'know, we could do things with that. Great things."

 

But there is a reason swords were chosen over axes in almost all cases where swords could be chosen over axes.

 

The reasons axes were prevalent was because it was cheap and easy to get. The more civilized militaries could afford to equip swords, and they all did. Why would they do that if swords were not better than axes?

 

Also, in Legatus's defense, he did actually answer a specific question that was asked.

 

"Does anyone else think the FW writers haven't read the Black Library HH books?" was the OP's question. The OP then used *his own* examples to explain why *he* felt that they did not.

 

Legatus then replied that he felt it was the other way around, and then used *his* personal examples of why. 

 

So Legatus did answer the original question with his opinion. 

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

Giving an army associated with versatility and technique a signature unit all armed with axes was the fault of the 4th Edition Codex Space Marines (no surprise, written by someone with a deep dislike for classical Ultramarines), not the FW guys, so this does not really belong here.

 

 

 

I don't know if you've ever actually used an axe as a weapon, but they are in fact versatile and, as all weapons do, they require a great amount of technique to use correctly. So perhaps consider your own biases, and your potential lack of experience and knowledge, before making complaints about the direction the background takes. Indeed, I think it makes the Ultramarines appear more versatile in that they appreciate the usefulness of weapons beyond the gladius, and recognize that simply because they are "Romans...IN SPAAAACE" doesn't mean they can't look at one of the most widely-used and effective weapons in history (the axe) and say "y'know, we could do things with that. Great things."

Have you used an axe in combat?

[Unholyechoes]

 

 

 

Giving an army associated with versatility and technique a signature unit all armed with axes was the fault of the 4th Edition Codex Space Marines (no surprise, written by someone with a deep dislike for classical Ultramarines), not the FW guys, so this does not really belong here.

 

 

 

I don't know if you've ever actually used an axe as a weapon, but they are in fact versatile and, as all weapons do, they require a great amount of technique to use correctly. So perhaps consider your own biases, and your potential lack of experience and knowledge, before making complaints about the direction the background takes. Indeed, I think it makes the Ultramarines appear more versatile in that they appreciate the usefulness of weapons beyond the gladius, and recognize that simply because they are "Romans...IN SPAAAACE" doesn't mean they can't look at one of the most widely-used and effective weapons in history (the axe) and say "y'know, we could do things with that. Great things."

Have you used an axe in combat?

I am going to admit, much to my shame, that I at least have not.

[Legatus]

Sorry if I have derailes your thread, Unholyechoes. The FW treatment of the Ultramarines is a pet peeve of mine, and I jump on opportunities to ramble about it.

 

 

On the issue of axes vs swords, even though that is also off-topic: There are a lot of comprehensive medieval fighting manuals that deal with sword fighting techniques. Obviously fighting with any weapon requires a certain amount of proficiency, and can be honed into an expertise, but there just are not any similar comprehensive treatises on axe fighting techniques. From a very casual overview (I am not that well versed in the topic) it looks like there are a few manuals that deal with poleaxe techniques, but very little on normal axes. From what I can see, axes were very widely used in the early medieval period, because they were very effective against light to medium armour and were easy to make. But with the spread of plate armour axes became rarer, as maces or warhammers were better at piercing them than axes were, and even swords were effective at piercing through gaps in the armour of a downed opponent.

Another consensus in the hema community also seems to be that the fighter with the sword will have the advantage over the fighter with the axe, unless they both carry shields, where the axe has the ability to hook the opponent's shield and the two weapons are now considered about even. Swords are the nimbler weapon, so are much better suited for fencing and duelling than the more unwieldy axe. Swords are much better at parrying, or quick jabs at the opponent's hands or other exposed weak points. Axes are more of a "heavy duty" weapon, with a more single minded means of attacking, and less effective defensively.

 

Put simply, the sword has two main means of attack (chop and thrust, unless you also wanted to distinguish between chop and draw cut, in which case it has three) and is very well suited to defend, the axe has one single means of attack, which is very powerful, but is less suited for defense.

 

So, for a Legion that is not as focused at inflicting heavy damage, but more on diverse means of warfare and defensive qualities as well as offensive, the sword would be the more characteristic weapon. The sword is the more "tactical" weapon, whereas the axe is a more specialised weapon. And I think the Ultramarines would probably equip their signature unit with the more versatile "tactical" weapon, not with the more specialised one.

 

To come back to the ancient fasces of the lictors as the inspiration for the Ultramarine Honour Guard: The lictors were a civil profession, not a military one. They used axes as status symbols not because they were considered such effective weapons, but because they represented their authority to impose the death penalty (axes were commonly used for executions by beheading, swords not so much). In comparison, the praetorian guard were a military unit, and they used swords. Whoever got the idea to give the Ultramarines a special unit back in 4th Edition (even though their background was not really permitting that at all) probably thought it was a great idea to use the lictors as an inspiration, even though the praetorian guard would probably have been the more obvious choice. There already was an Imeprial Guard regiment called "Praetorian Guard", so using that name could have caused confusion, but then GW did not have to call the unit "praetorian guard". After all, the Ultramarine Honour Guard or Invictarus Suzerain are not called "lictors" either.

 

Sorry, that turned out a bit longer than I thought my comment on axes vs swords would be.

[Kol Saresk]

 

 

 

 

Giving an army associated with versatility and technique a signature unit all armed with axes was the fault of the 4th Edition Codex Space Marines (no surprise, written by someone with a deep dislike for classical Ultramarines), not the FW guys, so this does not really belong here.

 

 

 

I don't know if you've ever actually used an axe as a weapon, but they are in fact versatile and, as all weapons do, they require a great amount of technique to use correctly. So perhaps consider your own biases, and your potential lack of experience and knowledge, before making complaints about the direction the background takes. Indeed, I think it makes the Ultramarines appear more versatile in that they appreciate the usefulness of weapons beyond the gladius, and recognize that simply because they are "Romans...IN SPAAAACE" doesn't mean they can't look at one of the most widely-used and effective weapons in history (the axe) and say "y'know, we could do things with that. Great things."

But there is a reason swords were chosen over axes in almost all cases where swords could be chosen over axes.

 

The reasons axes were prevalent was because it was cheap and easy to get. The more civilized militaries could afford to equip swords, and they all did. Why would they do that if swords were not better than axes?

 

"Better" would be highly situational. In armies like the Romans, Persians, and Greeks where the heaviest armor was a mix of scale and leather, and typical battle tactics required the soldiers to be able to move quickly and rely on spear-and-shield tactics, a sword was better for that kind of dirty and grotty melee.

 

In the medieval battlefields where knights and other forms of heavy calvary who were heavy plate mail were usually the deciding factor in the majority of fights, a sword was useless. In fact, in the medieval times, an axe, halberd, or pike would have been preferred by knights for the simple fact that axes had an easier time of punching through platemail than swords did due to things like physics involving sharp, heavy pieces of metal being swung around and focusing all of the force into a small surface area. Even if they didn't break through the armor, it was almost guaranteed to break bones and/or cause some sort of internal damage.

 

It's the same reasoning for why crossbows were so effectivez

 

Swords were basically the golf clubs of knights.

 

So really, "better" comes down to what you want. Do you want more control? Sword might be good. Do you prefer stabby stabby over Ultramarine smash? Sword might be good. Do you want to crush through armor? Axe.

 

Also, symbolically speaking, an axe was very important to the Romans as it was a symbol for justice. It's from them we got the idea to use it as an executioner's weapon when people didn't feel like crucifying or burning at the stake. So, since the symblism behind the Suzerains is that they're the dispensers of the Primarch's judgement, an axe is a very fitting weapon.

[Legatus]

I don't think axes were a common weapon for knights at all. As I noted above, warhammers and maces were more effective against plate armour and were more commonly used. A lot of treatises on knight weaponry do not mention axes at all, only poleaxes.

 

 

Another thing to consider: Chapters/Legions associated specifically with 'axes' as their signature weapon include the World Eaters, the Flesh Tearers and the Executioners.

Chapters/Legions associated specifically with 'swords' as their signature weapon include the Dark Angels and the Imperial Fists.

I don't think there is any disagreement on with which of those two groups the Ultramarines would more associated with.

[Slips]

If we're using the rules as a basis for "Signature Legion Weapons" then Imperial Fists is very much a Super-Power Fist in the Solarite Power Gauntlet.

 

And, as per your example of the Executionners, they're decended from the Imperial Fists and their Heraldry is derived from that of the Phalanx Warders.

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2015/12/31/767410_mb-Imperial%20Fists,%20Phalanx%20Warder%2003c.jpg

 

So, yeah, currently, IF are more about Axes and Power Fists than they are Swords whose use is mostly seen with the Templar Brethren.

Not Squad Sergeant with Sol Glove.

 

I mean, if you're so miffed about your Legion getting one of the better CCW, fluff issues about it aside, I'd gladly take them over regular Power Axes.

[Legatus]

I certainly wouldn't argue that the Invictarus Suzerain are not a very effective unit in the game. They are probably one of the best units available to any Legion. The Locutarus Storm Squads are similarly a very good unit, if only for the gear you get for the extremely low cost. But the battlefield effectiveness of the special units is not so much my concern. And it wasn't what the OP was asking about either.

 

 

So, yeah, currently, IF are more about Axes and Power Fists than they are Swords whose use is mostly seen with the Templar Brethren.

 

Even without the FW take on the Imperial Fists they had a certain association with swords, mainly due to the fact that it is the signature weapon of the Emperor's Champion, but also because swords are used in the 'Feast of Blades', which is an Imperial Fists tradition.

If we add the Forgeworld units into the mix, I am not convinced that the Phalanx Warders would constitute more of a signature unit for the Imperial Fists than the Templars are. For one, the IF Legion lore on Legion structure (HH3: Extermination, p. 62-64) does not even seem to mention the Phalanx Warders at all. It only mentions the Templars, who are described as "exemplars of what it was to be an Imperial Fist of the Great Crusade". In their army list entry the Templars are also described as equipped with "the best wargear that the armouries of the Legion can provide", which seems to include swords. The Templars are described as being around 1,000 in number.

The Phalanx Warders on the other hand seem to be more of a sideshow. Merely an Imperial Fist tweak on the common breacher unit. They are described as a "company", which according to the description of the Legion's organisation could mean a few hundred men, so probably fewer in number than the Templars. But the thing is that axes are not even the default equipment of the Phalanx Warders. They are an optional upgrade in the army list entry. It is just that Forgeworld sells the kit with axes.

 

So, I don't think an optional weapon upgrade for a unit that is only mentioned on the side should be considered more characteristic for the Imperial Fists than the default weapon of their main signature unit that is prominently featured in their Legion description.

 

The occasional use of the Executioners' iconography to hint at the later Chapter means as little to the Imperial Fists Legion as a whole as the mention of the "Aurorans" in the Ultramarine Legion description means they as a Legion are commonly associated with heavy armoured warfare. They are oddities that were subtly present somewhere within the Legion and would later be expressed in the creation of a different successor Chapter, but were not exactly characteristic for the Legion as a whole.

[Slips]

*snip*

 

So, I don't think an optional weapon upgrade for a unit that is only mentioned on the side should be considered more characteristic for the Imperial Fists than the default weapon of their main signature unit that is prominently featured in their Legion description.

*snip*

In that case, I'd ask you to look up the profiles for the Firedrake and Red Butcher Terminators, amongst others.

[Cleanse And Purify]

Giving an army associated with versatility and technique a signature unit all armed with axes was the fault of the 4th Edition Codex Space Marines (no surprise, written by someone with a deep dislike for classical Ultramarines), not the FW guys, so this does not really belong here.

I don't know if you've ever actually used an axe as a weapon, but they are in fact versatile and, as all weapons do, they require a great amount of technique to use correctly. So perhaps consider your own biases, and your potential lack of experience and knowledge, before making complaints about the direction the background takes. Indeed, I think it makes the Ultramarines appear more versatile in that they appreciate the usefulness of weapons beyond the gladius, and recognize that simply because they are "Romans...IN SPAAAACE" doesn't mean they can't look at one of the most widely-used and effective weapons in history (the axe) and say "y'know, we could do things with that. Great things."

But there is a reason swords were chosen over axes in almost all cases where swords could be chosen over axes.

The reasons axes were prevalent was because it was cheap and easy to get. The more civilized militaries could afford to equip swords, and they all did. Why would they do that if swords were not better than axes?

Also, in Legatus's defense, he did actually answer a specific question that was asked.

"Does anyone else think the FW writers haven't read the Black Library HH books?" was the OP's question. The OP then used *his own* examples to explain why *he* felt that they did not.

Legatus then replied that he felt it was the other way around, and then used *his* personal examples of why.

So Legatus did answer the original question with his opinion.

"More civilized" is relative. More to the point, axes became more prevalent as time went on and armor developed, not less so. In particular, as defenses such as mail, with the later addition of plate reinforcements, became commonplace, weapons such as axes, maces, and polearms became more popular in combat because they were more easily able to penetrate armor than most swords. Incidentally, daggers of all types remained popular forever for a similar reason (among others, of course).

Romans and Greeks, quite simply speaking, fought in eras and places where armor was less developed. Not to say that the sword was ineffective against armor, but they are markedly less effective than axes, even at producing blunt force trauma.

Have you used an axe in combat?

No, I have not. To my knowledge, very few people (maybe some members of the military in Iraq or Afghanistan?) have actually used axes in modern combat scenarios. There are of course organizations, such as HMB or the IMCF, that use blunted steel axes in some form of armored combat sport, but that is neither here nor there. However, I am well-versed in medieval history, and medieval western European military history in particular. The history of weapons and their usage across various cultures is something of an academic niche, but one I enjoy exploring nonetheless.

On the issue of axes vs swords, even though that is also off-topic: There are a lot of comprehensive medieval fighting manuals that deal with sword fighting techniques. Obviously fighting with any weapon requires a certain amount of proficiency, and can be honed into an expertise, but there just are not any similar comprehensive treatises on axe fighting techniques. From a very casual overview (I am not that well versed in the topic) it looks like there are a few manuals that deal with poleaxe techniques, but very little on normal axes. From what I can see, axes were very widely used in the early medieval period, because they were very effective against light to medium armour and were easy to make. But with the spread of plate armour axes became rarer, as maces or warhammers were better at piercing them than axes were, and even swords were effective at piercing through gaps in the armour of a downed opponent.

Another consensus in the hema community also seems to be that the fighter with the sword will have the advantage over the fighter with the axe, unless they both carry shields, where the axe has the ability to hook the opponent's shield and the two weapons are now considered about even. Swords are the nimbler weapon, so are much better suited for fencing and duelling than the more unwieldy axe. Swords are much better at parrying, or quick jabs at the opponent's hands or other exposed weak points. Axes are more of a "heavy duty" weapon, with a more single minded means of attacking, and less effective defensively.

So a few issues here. First issue is that the majority of surviving combat manuals from the medieval and Renaissance era deal with civilian self-defense, judicial dueling, and so on. Few deal with actual mass combat. So the sources are prejudiced towards the sword as a weapon for a few reasons, some of which were cultural rather than functional. Or a mix of both. In Germany and Italy, where the majority of the surviving texts originate, it was far more socially acceptable to wear a sword at one's waist than it was to carry an axe on one's belt. There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which being that a sword is quite easy to carry in a scabbard, whereas an axe is decidedly more difficult to lug around safely and conveniently. And so, if one was to teach another person how to fight in an unarmored duel or self-defense scenario, which is what the majority of texts deal with, then the sword is an attractive proposition for that fact alone. It is also quite effective against an unarmored foe, and it is easier to defend one's self, particularly one's hands (very important, as you may imagine) due to the existence of the crossguard.

Your timeline for the use of axes in the medieval era is actually rather off. Axes became more popular as time went on and armor increased, not less so. That's actually one of reasons you would wield an axe over a sword: even if it does not penetrate the armor itself, which can be quite difficult because armor in general works, the concentration of the weapon's mass, and therefore its force, behind the edge means more blunt trauma is conveyed to the target, which can be quite devastating/incapacitating on its own. The sword never lost its popularity, of course, for a number of reasons both practical and cultural. But the axe, particularly the two-handed axe, became ever more popular.

I am not terribly well-versed with the HEMA community, but I will say I agree that in the typical HEMA scenario, which is two unarmored people in a duel, the sword has the advantage. This is for a number of reasons, but one of the foremost would be hand protection. A sword's crossguard means its much more difficult to cut their hands, which are a prime target for some obvious reasons (they are closer to the opponent, they hold the weapon, etc), and they do tend to be nimbler (though, not always. Well-made axes generally weigh as much, or less than, swords). However, the introduction of armor into the equation considerably alters the dynamics of the fight. Moreover, axes are a bit more versatile of weapon than simply "hack 'em down." They can be more effective as close-range, for example, as one chokes up on the haft and more-or-less punches with the axe (not recommended if without some sort of hand protection, mind you), and when fitted with various spikes or points on the top or rear of the haft, they become quite effective as thrusting implements. Either way, its important to remember the context in which HEMA occurs--i.e. they are typically recreating a martial art as a combat sport, and doing so purely from their interpretation of rather scant written/pictorial resources--and also to remember the aforementioned context of the sources from which it is derived: manuals written to appeal to young gentry engaged in unarmored duels. Not exactly analogous to full-scale warfare waged among armored combatants, which is what knights engaged in on the battlefield, and what our fictional space knights fictionally engage in on their fictional sci-fi battlefields

As to their symbolic connotations, i.e. the sword as symbol of "tactical" or "defensive" warfare, I will not argue that many perceive it as such. However, I will say that if you think on the axe itself, you will find it has its own symbolic history associated with the defense of royal/noble personages. The huscarls of Harold Godwinson, and presumably his predecessors such as Cnut the Great, famously wielded two-handed axes. The Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire also famously wielded two-handed axes in defense of the Emperor. The gallowglasses of later medieval Ireland were also (in)famous for the use of two-handed axes in defensive formations around Irish chieftains, or at the rear of raiding parties. There are other examples I am undoubtedly forgetting at the moment.

I think the axe is not the "brute" weapon its often seen as in the popular eye, and I think it makes sense for the Ultramarines to use it as a weapon, particularly when one considers the prevalence of body armor in the 40k era (or 30k era, for that matter) and the obvious advantages an axe, even a sci-fi magic axe, would have over a sword (even a sci-fi magic sword).

EDIT: also, the source you linked, Legatus, looks like a term paper from an undergraduate history course. It is very brief, and quite scanty on the details, though it does have some lovely pictures sourced from Wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. If you grant me a little while, I should be able to grab some sources detailing my position, both primary and secondary.

[Unholyechoes]

Sorry if I have derailes your thread, Unholyechoes. The FW treatment of the Ultramarines is a pet peeve of mine, and I jump on opportunities to ramble about it.

 

 

On the issue of axes vs swords, even though that is also off-topic: There are a lot of comprehensive medieval fighting manuals that deal with sword fighting techniques. Obviously fighting with any weapon requires a certain amount of proficiency, and can be honed into an expertise, but there just are not any similar comprehensive treatises on axe fighting techniques. From a very casual overview (I am not that well versed in the topic) it looks like there are a few manuals that deal with poleaxe techniques, but very little on normal axes. From what I can see, axes were very widely used in the early medieval period, because they were very effective against light to medium armour and were easy to make. But with the spread of plate armour axes became rarer, as maces or warhammers were better at piercing them than axes were, and even swords were effective at piercing through gaps in the armour of a downed opponent.

Another consensus in the hema community also seems to be that the fighter with the sword will have the advantage over the fighter with the axe, unless they both carry shields, where the axe has the ability to hook the opponent's shield and the two weapons are now considered about even. Swords are the nimbler weapon, so are much better suited for fencing and duelling than the more unwieldy axe. Swords are much better at parrying, or quick jabs at the opponent's hands or other exposed weak points. Axes are more of a "heavy duty" weapon, with a more single minded means of attacking, and less effective defensively.

 

Put simply, the sword has two main means of attack (chop and thrust, unless you also wanted to distinguish between chop and draw cut, in which case it has three) and is very well suited to defend, the axe has one single means of attack, which is very powerful, but is less suited for defense.

 

So, for a Legion that is not as focused at inflicting heavy damage, but more on diverse means of warfare and defensive qualities as well as offensive, the sword would be the more characteristic weapon. The sword is the more "tactical" weapon, whereas the axe is a more specialised weapon. And I think the Ultramarines would probably equip their signature unit with the more versatile "tactical" weapon, not with the more specialised one.

 

To come back to the ancient fasces of the lictors as the inspiration for the Ultramarine Honour Guard: The lictors were a civil profession, not a military one. They used axes as status symbols not because they were considered such effective weapons, but because they represented their authority to impose the death penalty (axes were commonly used for executions by beheading, swords not so much). In comparison, the praetorian guard were a military unit, and they used swords. Whoever got the idea to give the Ultramarines a special unit back in 4th Edition (even though their background was not really permitting that at all) probably thought it was a great idea to use the lictors as an inspiration, even though the praetorian guard would probably have been the more obvious choice. There already was an Imeprial Guard regiment called "Praetorian Guard", so using that name could have caused confusion, but then GW did not have to call the unit "praetorian guard". After all, the Ultramarine Honour Guard or Invictarus Suzerain are not called "lictors" either.

 

Sorry, that turned out a bit longer than I thought my comment on axes vs swords would be.

Legatus, I think this is amongst the most relevant posts to the thread. Your research hits the exact points I intended to bring up when I specified the Ultramarines.

[SkimaskMohawk]

That is, if you ignore the post directly above your own...

 

IMO it's clear that FW often consults the Black Library books where relevant in terms of iconic units, but also isn't particularly beholden to the BL and draws inspiration from broader real world history and themes where they think it will make a stronger impression.

 

Particularly with the Suzerains; despite their military nature they also represent Guilliman's order and rule, acting as police amongst the populace and running the secret service (forget what they're called). So in this regard, the axe suits them perfectly as they do deliver justice in their civil duties as well as reinforcing their themes of order and stability for the populace. Ultramarines have sword and board for the pure military guard. Suzerains are more idealistic. 

[Lord_Ikka]

I believe the underlying issue with axes vs swords debate is not so much whether one is superior to another in combat as it is about the character of the legion as a whole. Granted, the Ultramarines have a lot of space-Rome flavor, this cannot be denied given their prevalence for both empire-building and their normal slate of weapons such as the gladius. Yet the Ultramarines are not simply space-Romans- they have a distinct culture of their own. Having a weapon for an honored position such as the Suzerains that is based off of a ceremonial weapon (a lictor's axe) makes sense as it marks the wielder as someone who has both legitimate duties (bodyguard) and a the ceremonial duty of representing the Legion as one of its veterans.

[Dagoth Ur]

Design choices are design choices, and I'd say FW have done a stellar job at them. If you want to represent the typical roman shieldwall formation, you have the option to give your regular breachers powerswords (Something my IW and BA envy you to death for). FW, I believe, have purposefully begun slowly diverting away from stereotypes for their legions, or at least to a bit less known images. Ultramarines are, next to being space marines, also protectors of Ultramar. As detailed by someone else, the axe is infamous as a symbol and weapon of guardians and protectors.

Also, it's called the Legatine Axe. A legate (lat. Legatus) is a person of high military rank within the roman army. The Legatine Axe can only be awarded to "leading" figures (Sergeants etc.). While it cannot be confirmed nor denied that the axe was a symbol of the legatus, I believe it is not relevant anyways. It's obviously a weapon awarded to people of rank, right? The lictors used the axe as a symbol of their rank and right, again true. So, perhaps, the legatine axe is an amalgamation of a symbol associated with specific powers and a title belonging to high military standing. Parade Weapons are a thing, after all. It would not be interesting at all to give a leading figure a gladius again, as A.) it's the stereotypic roman weapon and already available to the regular breacher squads (envyenvyenvy) and B.) to represent a legate otherwise, one would have to use a red cloak (the actual legate symbol). So, I believe, FW chose to amalgamate two symbols/titles in order to produce a new marker of power/seniority in the UM legion. As such, the statement of the gladius being the Ultramarines prefered weapon is not harmed or infringed at all. The Legatine Axe is only available to figures of seniority and leadership, while the gladius, in a way, is available to all (Either CCW or Powersword) and also as a special relic. Also AP2 Powerweapons are, from what I can remember, almost exclusively two-handed, and well, the closest thing you get to a two handed gladius is a xiphos. Also do not forget that the Gladius is a weapon sported by at least another legion on a, from what we've seen, bigger scale, the Night Lords.

The trident of the WE is, to me, a pretty clear continuation of the Caedere weaponry that is available to the World Eaters. The WE have a strong underlying theme of gladiatorism and martial glory and as such hold a strong weapon-image/culture. One of the classic gladiator weapons is the Trident (WE miss the net but oh well), and was missing from the Caedere list (Not that all gladiator variants are present there, but some are).

 

Now, while Legatus' post might have had good intentions to support his opinion, there are quite a few historical and scientific misconceptions that I feel I have to correct, although Cleanse and Purify has done an amazing job.

First of all, "more civilized XYZ" is very, very problematic to say as the state of being civilized is a very subjective concept. After all, Romans, at least in the beginning, imported soap from the germanic tribes as they themselves did not know how to manufacture it and took to cleaning themselves with oil. We have to understand that as a slashing weapon, and as a weapon against light armor(Here next to the spear), the sword is nigh unparalleled, at least so in ancient and medieval europe. Manufacturing a sword takes much longer, is more care intensive and takes more skill to make. In comparison, an axe is (In some cases) less metal intensive, always easier to manufacture and easier to maintain. This is the main reason why among the celtic and germanic tribes (Such as the angles, the jutes and the helvets) the axe was way more prevalent than the sword during the roman conquests. In these cultures, the sword was just as much a sign of social rank as it was a good weapon. In rome, almost every military formation good issued with a sword. The lictors were, amongst other reasons, issued with axes for practical reasons. Why would you issue a police force with high-cost, high-maintenance weapons when they would A.) never should be pitted in actual battle and B.) do not have the proper training to wield it?

Against the germanic tribes, the sword showed its worth as these people mostly wore only leather (Hardboiled mostly) and spare metal armour. On the other hand, axes were apparently pretty effective against the roman shields (If In Bello Gallico is to be trusted). As someone who is heavily involved in HEMA and in actual battle-technique reconstruction that goes beyond the usual duelling situation in which HEMA usually is conducted (Again, Cleanse and Purify has explained it beautifully as to why some manuals have survived and some have not), I can with confidence say, that it takes more work and time to educate a person to acceptable, i.e. footsoldier capability, levels of capability with a sword than with an axe. That is not to say that a onehanded axe is dead easy to wield, it isn't! It just isn't as hard to learn as a sword. The axe is, usually, way more apt at piercing armor than a sword and physics help understand why. If you apply the same force through two different sizes of surface (Note my unprofessional phrasing, historian and linguist here^^), then the force applied through the smaller surface will have a greater chance at penetrating said metallic surface. A sword, if used to stab, and an axe used to hit, usually have the same hitting-surface, so should penetrate the same, right? Nope. Swords are usually flexible, or else they'd shatter in combat. As you stab a hard surface with a sword it will either skid off or bent. The axe will not, it will behave more like a hatchet and bite right into the armour. If you want to see blades designed to pierce armour, look at daggers such as the rondello.

The axe is so effective against armour because on one side, it's a weapon that uses leverage to a much vaster advantage, and on the other side it utilizes force-application to its advantage.

You make a good point of the sword being more flexible than the axe. True. The axe is a way more specified weapon in terms of application. As such, the sword is indeed the symbol of versatility, I'll give you that Legatus. However, I'd say that their special/iconic units should be more specialized as they have been so throughout all legions and even all of our history. They are special/iconic for a reason and the suzerains do have a specific function, thus specific armaments. While it is nasty facing a sword and shield with an axe, I can tell you from expirience that if both combatants are armed with shields, then the axe wielder is in a much more advantageous position.

All in all, I have to say that Legatus' research is very, very faulty as it fails to aknowledge the source and nature of texts he is dealing with and also misconstrues the general properties of weaponry and their utilization. I do not wish to come off as offensive, as a matter of fact I try to remain as academic and un-personal as possible, but if we are already dealing with academia, then we should do so in the right manner and historical context.

 

I am very sorry to have derailed the thread even more, even though I've tried to offer some answers and insight from my side first, but I take great issue with people not properly representing sources and their nature (See surviving manuals), since context is immensely important in any historical discussion, which is why I chose to deconstruct Legatus argument partially. If you wish to look at a historically more accurate perspective, Cleanse and Purify is spot on.

[Unholyechoes]

One thing we should keep in mind is that in massed combat, the majority were not in metal plate, which served as not only protection, but also a symbol of status. The majority would have worn hardened leather or wool, though it of course depended on the army. Plate was prohibitively expensive. I believe in the Roman Republic, the common soldiers paid for their own gear.

[Unholyechoes]

That is, if you ignore the post directly above your own...

I am on my phone, so by the time I read and reply, another few tend to pop up.

[Unholyechoes]

If we're using the rules as a basis for "Signature Legion Weapons" then Imperial Fists is very much a Super-Power Fist in the Solarite Power Gauntlet.

 

And, as per your example of the Executionners, they're decended from the Imperial Fists and their Heraldry is derived from that of the Phalanx Warders.

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2015/12/31/767410_mb-Imperial%20Fists,%20Phalanx%20Warder%2003c.jpg

 

So, yeah, currently, IF are more about Axes and Power Fists than they are Swords whose use is mostly seen with the Templar Brethren.

Not Squad Sergeant with Sol Glove.

 

I mean, if you're so miffed about your Legion getting one of the better CCW, fluff issues about it aside, I'd gladly take them over regular Power Axes.

On a quick side note, is that top model yours?

[SkimaskMohawk]

You posted 2 hours after he did? How did you manage to miss the post when reading and then replying?

 

Not sure what the roman republic comment has to do with anything or the nature of combat in historical contexts? Roman Legionaries having to buy their own armour has no relevant context on the 30k rule design vis a vis black library novels. We've established the thematic and historical backings of giving axes to prominent Ultramarines figures; the exact fighting styles, weapon merits and period advantages of the weapons are essentially useless in discussing why the Ultramarines would have axes.

 

I could posit more rhetoric on how bodyguards to primarchs would generally be fighting things who'd need heavy armour to be pierced for arguments on the weapon's practicality, but honestly I think the horse is well and truly beaten 

[Unholyechoes]

You posted 2 hours after he did?

Yep, was out at dinner. Will do better in the future(probably).

[Cleanse And Purify]

 

 

You posted 2 hours after he did?  

It's quite fine. People often have stuff to do besides read every reply in a forum thread :)

One thing we should keep in mind is that in massed combat, the majority were not in metal plate, which served as not only protection, but also a symbol of status. The majority would have worn hardened leather or wool, though it of course depended on the army. Plate was prohibitively expensive. I believe in the Roman Republic, the common soldiers paid for their own gear.

Getting off-topic here, but in for a penny, in for a pound eh? The prevalence of plate armor, and its relative rarity, varied according to time, place, and military context. Among the Germanic tribes of the Migration era, mail armor varied in its commonality: there's textual evidence indicating that at certain battles, Goths and/or Franks were armored indistinguishably from their Roman counterparts. Indeed, their Roman counterparts may have simply been Goths/Franks fighting for the "other side," as it were. Moving forward a millennium or so, so-called "transitional" plate armor (splints of metal attached to leather backing, or coats of plate made from metal riveted between layers of leather or cloth, f'rex) is reasonably common among the professional men-at-arms of France, England, Burgundy et. al during the early stages of the Hundred's Year War. And yet, a relatively short distance away in Ireland, mail is the most common form of armor (alongside cloth/leather padded garments, such as the aketon), and even transitional plate armor is relatively rare, verging on non-extant. English armies stomped all over the plate-clad French, but often as not, were defeated by the Irish who wore mail and padded overcoats. The reasons for this do not solely, or even mainly, stem from the armor used, but its an interesting juxtaposition.

 

Flash forward to the late 1400s and early 1500s, and plate armor is nearly ubiquitous across Europe. Yet, still often absent from areas like Ireland, or the Lithuanian/Teutonic border. Reasons for this range from the material poverty of these regions (which has often been overblown, it must be said), to the differing tactical concerns of warfare waged in dense terrain where mobility and speed of motion (typically on the march rather than in combat itself) trumped the protective qualities of plate harness.

 

Also, the use of hardened leather as the catch-all "barbarian" armor is...well, generally wrong, from what archaeology and historical sources can tell us. Most people, if they did not wear mail, possessed a shield as their primary method of defense. There are generally few indications of leather or padded garments as "stand-alone" armor in Europe before the 12th century, IIRC. I am not as well-versed in that as I should be, though I believe there are a few good historians specializing in that exact issue: i.e. what, if any, armor people wore besides mail, which we know to be relatively rare before the 12th century (and even after it).

 

Oh, uh, also...something something 30k. Something something on-topic. Etc.

[GhostMalone]

Wow...... The phosphex is about to hit this one soon

[Arkangilos]

More civilized isn't really relative, as civilized refers to a more economically wealthy and advanced. Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia, and Carthage were more adcanced than the Gauls, Germans, etc. We have the value of hindsite where we can objectively point to such things.

 

Axes became more prevalent only for a period of time that saw the economic decline. After the economy got better and people got wealthier, swords became more dominant in the militaries again. Wealthy warriors almost always chose swords over axes.

 

Axes actually *dont* do more damage to plate than swords, there are plenty of examples you can find where they smash the axe into the plate and it barely dents it. Heck, plate even protects rather well against maces and hammers.

 

However, this argument is going to come down to unverified "I'm an expert and learned in this subject" -and I have a feeling neither of us will convince each other otherwise.

 

Almost all evidence that exists shows that swords are more versatile than axes, and I am willing to bet you that most people who fight will chose a sword over an axe.

 

In fact, if you even just look at a sword and know anything about fighting at all, you can even use simple reason to see it. You can cut, chop, stab, and flip the blade around to use the hilt as a sort of pick, which can also be used to hook.

 

An axe can certainly chop, but it's utility beyond that and hooking is limited. It's worse as a defensive weapon, not as sturdy, has less impact area (which has its pros and cons), isn't as well balanced, leaves your hand far more vulnerable, and won't ever be small enough to fit through the eye sockets of the armor. While it could be used to knock a plated guy down, the chances of it smashing through the plate were low, and a sword could also knock him down, and will fit into the gaps.

[Arkangilos]

That is, if you ignore the post directly above your own...

 

 

Well I mean, his post is wrong, so it's not really all that relevant.