FW/Black Library confusion.

[Cleanse And Purify]

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.

Well, you use one definition of "civilized," and that points to certain cultural biases you carry. Other definitions exist, certainly, and personally I find the term far too nebulous as to be of use when seriously discussing history. And no, we do not have the benefit of objectivity when discussing history. History is conveyed to us through a variety of sources, textual and otherwise, and all such sources come from subjective points of view. I.e. Caesar wrote his Commentaries on the Gallic War and we have only his subjective perspective on that event. All such historical work done must be filtered through the cultural context in which said history occurred. So in that sense, no, we do not have the benefit of objectivity because there has not ever been a totally objective account of history yet written. Nor is one possible, so long as humans live a subjective life and therefore can only write through lens of said subjectivity

 

As to your second point: patently false. Indeed, as I mentioned, axes become more common throughout the medieval era across western Europe, not less so, and while economies trended both up and down across western Europe according to a variety of factors (wars both near and far, the opening and closing of trade routes, and the plagues), armor only got more prevalent. I can point to specific instances in medieval Ireland and England, which are areas I know most thoroughly due to my academic interests.

 

As to axes not doing more damage to plate armor, I already answered this: one need not even visibly dent armor to inflict significant blunt trauma to flesh beneath it. For a somewhat unacademic, yet undeniably entertaining example, consider the following video:http://nerdist.com/diving-into-the-armored-combat-league-a-medieval-style-mma/

 

In the first few seconds of the video, a man wearing steel plate armor is knocked out by blows from blunted axes. One need not penetrate armor to seriously affect an opponent.

 

As to the third point: I will provide sources for my claims. Most of my books are currently boxed up (I recently moved) but no need to worry about unfounded claims. I am not an expert. Not in the sense that someone like Guy Halsall is an expert, anyways. But I do know quite a bit, and I can back it up, provided the luxury of time. Judging by what you've said, I do not think I will be convinced by your opinions because they seem uninformed to my eye. But I am quite confident I can convince you that I am correct.

 

 

 

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

Well I mean you've really contributed nothing except poorly spelled misconceptions, so I don't see how you have room to judge the relevance of anyone else when your own contributions barely deserve the title.

 

EDIT: I will work with what I have. Some examples, from Englishmen (well, one's a Cambro-Norman, but such is life) writing of the use of axes in Ireland. The first is from John Dymmok's Treatise on Ireland, written in the late sixteenth century when plate armor was quite in abundance among the English, and used even by certain nobles among the Gaelic Irish (cf. the effigy on the tomb of Malachy O'More at Abbey Leix House in Laois, where the decidedly Gaelic chieftain of the O'More's wears a rather odd form of plate armor, dated to the early sixteenth century, seen in unfortunately low quality image here: http://www.tara.tcd.ie/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2262/35046/ertk2058.jpg?sequence=1). Anyway, Dymmok has this to say of the Galloglas, a sort of heavy infantryman of the Irish: 

 

"The greatest force of the battell consisteth in them, chosinge rather to dye then to yeelde, so that when yt cometh to handy blowes they are quickly slayne or win the feilde. They are armed with a shert of maile, a skull, and a skeine: the weapon they most vse is a batle axe, or halberd, six foote longe, the blade whereof is somewhat like a shomakers knyfe, and without pyke; the stroake whereof is deadly where yt lighteth." Source found here: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E590000-001/index.html

 

The axe of the Galloglas, "deadly where it lighteth," is considered so in light of the armor the English undoubtedly wore. The sixteenth century, as you no doubt know, was the high point of the development of plate armor. Despite this, Dymmok considered the axe of the Galloglas a particularly fearsome weapon. The two-handed axe was long considered as such. Consider this extract from Gerald of Wales' Topography of Ireland, written several centuries earlier (before the advent of plate armor, it must be said): "But in striking with the battle-axe they use only one hand, instead of both, clasping the haft firmly, and raising it above the head, so as to direct the blow with such force that neither the helmeta which protect our heads, nor the platting of the coat of mail which defends the rest of our bodies, can resist the stroke. Thug it has happened, in my own time, that one blow of the axe has cut off a knight's thigh, although it was incased in. iron, the thigh and leg falling on one side of his horse, and the body of the dying horseman on the other" (123-124).

 

And finally, from an Irish primary source of the period, the Triumphs of Turlough, written toward the end of fourteenth century and purporting to chronicle events that took place around the Bruce invasion of Ireland, 1315-1318 (the relevant passage occurs at that date, the actual text includes information from the late 1200s onward): "O'Conor raised the deadly hard-steeled polished blue-glancing axe, and on the princely commander delivered a slanting stroke that to one side of his reins took effect on his mail, breaking the skin and rupturing a kidney, but one single ring of the mail it never broke." This bears more evidence, by the way, to my point about blunt force trauma penetrating armor (mail over an aketon in this case) without actually damaging the armor itself.

 

And finally, let me say that I'm not trying to say the axe is a superior weapon to the sword. My original point was that Legatus may have been looking at the axe in the wrong light: as a brute, unsophisticated weapon relative to the sword. Both are excellent weapons: our ancestors would not have persisted in their use for so long were they not. And they were used concurrently throughout much of history. But to say the axe was only used during times of economic downturn, and that almost all warriors would prefer a sword to an axe...well, that's just not borne out by the historical record. Honestly, most warriors would have both if they could afford it, and use them according to the situation.

 

EDIT: and just for good measure, and because I can access it easily online, here is another instance of an axe defeating armor in the early fourteenth century. From John Barbour's poem Brus, detailing the career of Robert the Bruce, king of Scotland. 

 

"Schyr Hanry myssit the noble king

    And he that in his sterapys stud

    With the ax that wes hard and gud

    With sua gret mayne raucht him a dynt

    That nother hat na helm mycht stynt

The hevy dusche that he him gave

    That ner the heid till the harnys clave.

    The hand-ax schaft fruschit in twa,

    And he doune to the erd gan ga

    All flatlynys for him faillyt mycht."

 

In essence, an over-eager English knight, Henry de Bohun, charges the Scottish king and is slain by a single blow to the helm by Bruce's axe. Now one might argue that Barbour is a poet, and obviously includes this passage as a method of demonstrating the king's strength and martial skill. That very well may be, but the fact remains that Barbour would presumably have wanted his text to be in some way believable to his audience, and so the details themselves are in some sense realistic, even if the event itself may be considered romanticized for poetic or rhetorical effect (though it may have occurred exactly as Barbour writes, for all we know). Meaning that the king slaying an armored man with an axe is probably within reason. So, a few things here that counter Arkangilos' points. 1: the king of Scotland is a wealthy man. He undoubtedly owns a sword or two. He decides to enter battle with an axe rather than a sword. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Consider the O'Conor above: an Irish chieftain of the same time period, he also undoubtedly owned a sword or two and yet chose to enter battle wielding an axe. 2: He is undoubtedly fighting against men wearing plate armor in the transitional style. De Bohun would probably have been wearing a plate bascinet, which were quite popular (and sturdy). 

[Arkangilos]

Can't spell worth a crap right now so I'm deleting everything until tomorrow, lol

 

Then maybe I'll be coherent enough to explain my argument better :p

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

Let me step in for the AoD mods, and hope they dont phosphex me.

 

While the above posts are really, really interesting and I love the documentation happening (Im a history teacher so Im practically squeeing here), let's try and return to the original topic. 

 

Save any rebuttals for pm's if they have to happen. 

 

WLK

[Kol Saresk]

Let me step in for the AoD mods, and hope they dont phosphex me.

 

While the above posts are really, really interesting and I love the documentation happening (Im a history teacher so Im practically squeeing here), let's try and return to the original topic.

 

Save any rebuttals for pm's if they have to happen.

 

WLK

Honestly, to me personally, this is a weird topic. Because in order to actually answer it is to be a Forgeworld writer and say "Yeah, we watched too many gladiator movies so we threw in a trident for the World Eaters because they're a gladiator-themed legion." Other than that, the best answer we can get is A D-B's answer where BL takes a narrow view while FW takes on the broad view.

 

As posters, the best we can do is either reiterate A D-B's answer or try to guess by using the real world influences of each Legion to explain why it fit. IE: World Eaters = Space Gladiators = Tridents. The Ultramarines has been beat to death with how axes actually do fit in Roman-influenced society.

 

As for the Breachers, every Legion does have access to breachers. From there, certain Legions get specialty versions of those units. So there really is no need to replicate them across the board.

 

I feel like this topic should be closed because the questions have been answered as best as they can be and now it's just going to be everyone trying to say why their opinion is more revelant than someone else's.

[Slips]

Yep, we're done here.

 

The Question has been answered and even someone who'd have better knowledge over why these differences occurs chimed in.

 

And yet, we still veered WILDLY off-topic not a day after BCK stepped in to get things back on track.

 

If you're going to post something that is intentionally Off-Topic don't even bother posting it.