Axe, Sword, or Spear which is the greatest weapon?

Attached: 250px-Weapon_Triangle_with_Characters[1].png (250x171, 31K)

Spear, due to ease of use, availability, versatility, and overall cost. You can use a spear for literally anything. Need to stop that guy on a horse? Spear. Need to take down some big game? Grab some friends and their spears. Need to go fishing? Spear with rope on it. Need to arm an army? Spears. Defend your farm? Take that nasty hoe out back and make that bitch into a motherfucking spear. Need to kill some fucker from far away? Shoot a bunch of little spears at that faggot. Gun stopped working? Well, put a knife on that bitch and pretend your stupid broken gun is a spear.

Axes are for lumberjacks, and swords are toys for rich faggots who never do any fighting.

Attached: meme steel hunting spear.jpg (450x299, 38K)

Greatest would be a bit of a competition, if you use something that isn't perfect to an effect something else could do, people would say it requires more skill and technique, making it the greatest. I guess I'd go with a big ass dane axe. pic related, nerd for scale

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 90K)

isn't that head oversized for a daneaxe? it looks like some kind of hollywood fantasy creation. even if the blade is thin, that's a lot of mass, and the tremendous flaring means there's a lot of off-center mass.

have some classical Chinaman polearms

Attached: 1280px-Chinese_dagger-axe_and_related_polearms.svg.png (1280x936, 104K)

Good luck stopping a 14th century French chavalier in full plate armor on top of a destrier with a fucking spear

the spear doesn't have to be able to penetrate armor, you just need a formation that doesn't break. Horses won't charge into a mass of spikes and bodies. I think your criticism may come from a (very common) misunderstanding of shock cavalry tactics. You can only charge -into- a formation when it breaks. Normal cavalry attacks happen parallel across to the enemy front, not perpendicular into it.

>cant maul with it

Attached: 45B74178-4DB7-477B-88ED-15B7D54769E7.jpg (400x400, 7K)

A gun, obviously

Ah and there we have it. Its so typical when Jow Forums pretends that the spear is superior to the sword, but then pretends like a sword was used for mass battleground formations.

The spear is for mass formation, where lack of discipline gets literally everyone in your troupe killed. The sword is both a status symbol for the medieval knight caste and for melee combat in a messy situation between men-at-arms/knights.

Again, back to my point. If a fully plated knight is charging down on YOU (alone), a spear is the last weapon youll want.

Because anyone who has studied medieval warfare and how the technology evolved can tell you that every weapon shined during different periods and in different iterations.

The halberd in fact was the true weapon of choice vs armored knights. In fact the evolution of Swiss pikemen (who actually used halberds in their first decades of rebellion/warfare). Only when the mass formations of swiss pikemen started to render armored knights obsolete, then you start seeing a phalanx-type giant spear to use in a push formation against other troops on foot. And not 100 years later, you see Spanish tercios with mixed in firearms dominating European infantry formations.

So stop spouting the typical Jow Forums memeshit. The spear was never the god-tier weapon you all pretend it was.

agreed

That's why the Roman legionaries were able to withstand heavy cavalry without spears. Their discipline allowed them to maintain a block that no horse would charge into (both GoT and LotR filming got cavalry attacks wrong) and the pila were decent spear substitutes and useful for throwing against cavalry that dared to come close.

The Parthian cataphractii only attacked the Roman legionaries where they were weakened by the many arrows shot (not "fired") by the Parthian light horse archer cavalry.

Even bayonets (which form with muskets the worst kind of spear possible) sufficed to protect against heavy cavalry including partially plate-protected cuirassiers in the late 17th and in the 18th century if only the infantrymen kept their square formation discipline (or fighting column or other suitable anti-cav formations).

polearms or halberds

Swords are incredibly versatile fighting weapons but arent good for warfare. That is all

Why choose?
>Use axe to hack at things, hook things like shields or legs
>Use hammer to crush armor and the bastard underneath it
>Use stabby point for all things a spear does, sans hunting, but with better armor penetration ability
It's the best of all worlds.

Attached: opplsnerf.jpg (800x600, 52K)

BTW, I vote for poleaxe / Mordaxt as the greatest non-firearm melee weapon ever.

It was extremely versatile and would have done well in all eras against all kinds of close combat opponents.
For non-melee/non-firearm I vote for the Turkish horse archer short range composite recurve bow.

myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html

the hammer is for knocking fools out in helmets not crushing armor you fucktard and pole weapons are shit dealing with heavy armor. a one handed mace or short 2 hand axe are superior.

>and pole weapons are shit dealing with heavy armor.
Cease

Attached: 1540431947727.jpg (253x310, 33K)

nigger what

Attached: 600969-3.jpg (1024x1024, 92K)

in a chaotic melee they are. formations trading blows is where they shine. who would win? 50 plated knights with halberds or 50 plated knights with shields and maces?

this is why this thread is stupid. you cant choose a weapon thats going to be best for both heavy armor and light armor. and it also depends on what kind of armor the wielder has.

a bec de corbin would probably be the best choice if you had to choose 1 weapon without knowing what time period or class you were being teleported into but its not going to be the best at any one time

Axes are the most useful of the group but spear is the best weapon.

>>/out/

Spears. You can shit them out and they don't even have to be that good a quality to kill dudes. You can give them to peasants and basically just say "stand next to each other and use the pointy end". Even an untrained illiterate peasant can poke people in the gut with a long pointy stick. Trained is obviously better but it's not anywhere near as important as it would be with a sword. Getting an army of spears that works can cost the nation fielding them a hell of a lot less money and time than the other two. Even weapons like halberds and bec de corbins are still usually have a stabby bit at the right orientation for the job, but obviously they've also got elements of an axe and/or war hammer.

>utility.
You can't chop a tree with a battle axe.

7/10 good effort user

if only chosing between those 3, the polearm is better for war, the sword is better for umarmored duels, and the axe is best for utility.

indeed. I was thinking a one handed viking style axe. Can be pretty useful for clearing brush and general camp life

I'm going to ask this
Are kunai as dumb as it looks?

Swords are better for dueling against spears, spears are better for phalanxes and repelling calvary charges, an axe is useful against heavily armored opponents.

It's a stabby thing that started life as a mundane farming tool that could stab people but was easily explained as to why you have it by looking like a farmer, like most things ninjas used.

Depends on the context

>Swords are better for dueling against spears
wrong

Ah, wrong. This is not a video game, and spears are better at practically everything.

Thanks Phil I'm going to go use my spear against a horse archer.

Ha! Good luck stopping him without a spear

spear

Spears are cheap, effective and due to the reach and simple, linear use are the best weapon for someone that is going to get a couple weeks of training.

Trying to fight a swordsman that knows what he is doing with one is a bad idea and will lead to you having a very bad day.

>Grug no believe holobunga

It's the 14th century. Fucking shoot him.

>Trying to fight a swordsman that knows what he is doing with one is a bad idea and will lead to you having a very bad day.
This is why I use pocket sand.

Here you go maggots!

youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U

To be fair, a large reason it was dominant was cost.

>isn't that head oversized for a daneaxe?
No. If you look at bible illustrations they're more like a mix between a dane axe and a bardiche and kill the living shit out of people in chain mail like cutting them in half. It's pretty cool. I guess a halbred would be a nice in between if you want a puny looking axe head that isn't good enough to really horrifically cleave someone in half with so they're just flopping around and you can't unstick the fucking thing.
Spears work well at that because the horse is going to die and then crush the rider or break his leg and he's gonna get trapped under it if running at horse speed wasn't enough for him to get impaled, then everyone is going to stab him a lot or capture him.
Romans didn't fight people that used sattles and stirrups, if anything the English vs. Scottish is a much better example of cavalry vs infantry using similar melee tactics.

swordfags btfo
also love me some lindybeige

>when muzzleloaders with bayonets got popular
more like they upgraded the spear and added option to shoot before stabbing

Spears/polearms > Blunt weapons > any other melee weapon
In terms of coolness
Sword > everything else

>Swords are better for dueling against spears
If you’re in a full suit of plate armor, sure
>an axe is useful against heavily armored opponents.
Not really, you want blunt weapons against heavy armor

>Swords are incredibly versatile fighting weapons but arent good for warfare.
So why did pretty much every soldier tried to have one at their disposable then?
Swords fill a very important niche in melee, but then the question is stupid because you don't choose a weapon but pick whatever you need and everything you need and can get, then pages carry the rest.

Jow Forums goes through phases like an edgy teenager. It wasn't long ago that the underage faggots who pollute this board were jerking off over ulfbert and before that katanas.

General practical ranking

Spear
Sword
Axe

General coolness ranking

Axe
Sword
Spear

axe is most effective across widest range of enviroments as well as skill levels

Gunberd

Attached: 90B95D93-AF14-4A3F-B5B5-834837982687.jpg (500x667, 71K)

My heart says Axe, my brain says Spear.

Based and ork pilled

>muzzleloaders with bayonets
AKA Shooty spears

Attached: 1557909270692.png (224x314, 61K)

Attached: sp3ar.jpg (672x936, 157K)

depends on the circumstances.

in war it makes sense to lug around a big spear or pole arm or even a lance. But if you're a knight or samurai just doing patrol with a low chance of combat you'll probably only have a sword.

When in formation spears of course have the range to be effective. However if the formation is broken you won't have room to maneuver a spear in close combat. When the lines are broken you need a sword, mace, flail, axe, or hammer. Hell even a club would be better than a spear in a crowded battle field.

that big blade would flop around like a pancake. dane axes look nothing like that.

A pen.

Attached: NS920607.gif (600x295, 135K)

>in war it makes sense to lug around a big spear or pole arm or even a lance. But if you're a knight or samurai just doing patrol with a low chance of combat you'll probably only have a sword.

Breh the retainers do all the lugging for them.

Heavy cavalry got beat by pikeman all the time

Spear is the weapon of war
Swords are for personal fights
Axes are tools

Attached: 1531817716403.png (700x474, 263K)

If I swung a two-handed hammer into your chest it wouldn't crush armor you are right there but it would know you the fuck down and they would do a lot more than just knock you out if it hit your helmet, We have never had a helmet that helped with serious blows to the head because you can't have a helmet for inside the brain

War hammer.

Tomahawk is the longest standing used, Spears for funding an army, anyone who has handled any sword except shortswords knows why you wouldn't want to use it to fight for a longer duration.

As someone with actual years of experience teaching and training with medieval weapons, spear is considered the best all-around weapon, sword is second best, axe is really good at one specific thing. Swords are dueling weapons and highly efficient at killing, but due to their price and training required not many people made use of them. Knives and short swords did the job most people associate with larger swords. Spears are cheap to manufacture and easy to train with, but an experienced sword user will absolutely kill some dumb peasant with a spear. Spear users have one, maybe two shots at an experienced swordsman, then they're dead. All it takes is one parry and then the distance is closed and they're snacking on steel. Spears are great for distance, but once you lose your measure you're fucked. Meanwhile, axes did a fine job at killing back when armor and shields were poorly designed and manufactured. They effectively vanished by the high medieval period because other weapons did what they did, only better.

I'm into historical ninjutsu, and I own a traditional one. They're thick, flat, and generally nonthreatening. Depending on the size it's most comparable to a smatchet. I do throw it for fun a lot but it's really just useful as a crowbar, digging tool, and you can use it with ropes for some cool stuff.

Attached: Traditional-Kunai-Tree-Stump.jpg (1200x1600, 306K)

just stab his horse

>Spear users have one, maybe two shots at an experienced swordsman, then they're dead. All it takes is one parry and then the distance is closed and they're snacking on steel.
In single combat, yes. On the battlefield...? Not so much.

lindybeige has a video on combat, it's great against basically everything because of the distance it allows you to keep

Attached: 1558482745975.png (512x512, 361K)

halberd

>spear
>axe
>spear + axe
>halberd

Attached: supirior wepoan.jpg (675x1878, 193K)

you fucking spastic

Spear is easily the best
>long reach which means low risk of me getting stabbed
>great in formation
>easy to handle
>cheap to make
>good against horses
>good against armor

youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U

the results speak for themselves. the majority of fights between a trained swordsman vs a untrained spearman, the spear wins. the results with a trained spearman would have been no contest.

Quarterstaff.

>axes are tools
>*blocks your path*

Attached: 29_Helbard-Hammer-Backedge_V2.jpg (700x700, 180K)

Spear. I can poke you with the pointy bits while you're still out of range.

>Take that nasty (tatted-up) hoe out back and spear that bitch

Well the cucks with Spears in Mordhau always seem to fuck me up before I can close the gap.

also helmets to nothing to support the neck,

For what purpose? Axes are great for EDC I guess.

Meh, there's no such thing as "Greatest Weapon". It's all a matter of context.

That being said, SWORDSTAFFS BITCHES
youtube.com/watch?v=-xIhCesfbYA

So, who's winning in here?

spear, because Jow Forums is gun guys who maybe hunt. Who thinks range always matter most in a close quarters fight

>sword for duels and general versatility as a secondary weapon

>spear for battlefields

>axe for chopping kniggers in the middle of a chaotic battle

Spears are the primary weapon

Axe and sword are predominately sidearms. Axes are cheaper to make and own and require less training. Sword can be with proper make and training a viable weapon in duels.

/THREAD

Attached: 1556662244895.png (722x713, 277K)

Why does he reference the Naginata, but not the Nagamaki or Omi Yari?

Attached: Antique_Japanese_(samurai)_omi_yari_(large_spear)_1.jpg (768x1024, 367K)

Naginata is the most common

Attached: 1556666574886.jpg (788x656, 23K)

He makes it a point to say that the Swordstaff is the most sword-like polearm in history, because the Naginata is too short a blade and only single edged.
Nagamaki and Omi Yari have similar if not longer blades to the Swordstaff, and the Omi Yari is even double edged

Idiots.