>uses less metal than a sword>can be carried in your belt like a swordWhy didn't more cultures have a tomahawk culture? I think only the Vikings, injuns and Americans used tomahawks
It's literally just an axe you fucking retarded gorilla
Even with extensive training, accuracy would likely have been inconsistent. And carrying spares, like arrows, would have been difficult.
>>65032131wood for handles that didn't expand were rareit takes roughly 2 years before good wood dies and stops growing/splitting when introduced to waterits faster to make a sword
why didn't someone invent a spear, hear me out here, that can be carried in your belt by some snapping mechanism? fold it in half or something desu
>>65032131>limited range>can't stab>throwing is impraticalspear wins again
>>65032131Saxons and franks also already did it during medieval times (francisca axe). Even during the crusades axes were throwed against shields to maim the defense capabilities or repel long spear attacks.Small, "throwable" axes were common, used to be treated as tools either for working or fighting, not a status symbol.The nobility considered swords ( more expensive to manufacture due requiring more metal and smithing skills, at least in preindustrial ages) gucci gear and liked to be buried with them or give it in inheritance to their family members. That is why we have more swords in museums. There were exceptions like vikings who liked axes and had no social issue carrying them on a daily basis.
>>65032131Axemen get fucking murdered by swordsmen because it's a much more unwieldy weapon
>>65032228On the other hand, swords are not useful for anything besides killing other humans in melee range. The axe has all kinds of fieldcraft uses.
>>65032250Military axes usually had blade to thin and fragile for everyday use in fieldcraft.There were tools and there were weapons.
>>65032250maybe for peasants
>>65032133and they weren't as widely used as swords, you retard
>>65032250Funnily enough thats why swords and other armor got so cheap. Lot of people ended up selling their family swords over generations of peaceful times because they were wall hangers and unless drenched in oil would rust away.
>>65032131Because most civilizations evolved from Bronze-age technology and/or aren't metal-starved backwater hicks like Vikangz or American tribes. Sword are grade-a versatile sidearms and commoners could afford cheap short-ass once.
>>65032260Yes they were. Just not in combat. Carrying a hatchet or axe for field craft was literally everywhere. Swords for most of European history was rare as well, with only officers and certain specialists carrying them: and these guys won't be fighting with them a lot if at all. A line of muskets with bayonets beats a tomahawk-armed soldier, a line of pikes beats a tomahawk-armed soldier, almost any combat melee weapon beats a tomahawk.
>>65032143>accuracy would likely have been inconsistentjust have an oval handle for edge alignment >And carrying spares, like arrows, would have been difficult.what? like a spare sword? just tuck it into your belt. why throw it?
>>65032148then why did they make spears?>>65032166you can't tuck a spear into your belt as a sidearm >>65032228source?
>>65032131Sucks on horseback compared to a sword.
>>65032314a tomahawk isn't something that would be used against a pike or spear, it would be a side arm, like how pikemen had swords to go with their pikes.
>>65032228Say that to my face, swordcuck, and not online.
>>65032420I've seen some glaives that have that same hand stop thing
>>65032314>Swords for most of European history was rare as well, with only officers and certain specialists carrying themPlease. What is this nonsense?We have many documents from Medieval Period when rullers established what sort of weapons people coming to their service must have. Every soldiers must have a sword (in addition to whatever other gear).
>>65032454lel, the militia law for the very early US (might have been colonial times) allowed for a sword, bayonet or tomahawk and there are documents from mustering up the colonial militia during the revolution where dudes would show up with tomahawks and no guns for militia service. it's one of the reasons article I section 8 Clause 16 of the constitution mentions that congress and the states have the power to arm the militia and it's one of the better ways to dunk on antis who claim the 2nd amendment refers to the right of states to have militias or whatever retarded argument they have
>>65032260Anon, maces and hammers were used a lot
>>65032314t.
>>65032131What do you mean with "tomahawk culture"? Migration period scandinavians/germanics/etc. all had dedicated war and tool axes which weren't used interchangeably. In North America the natives similarly had dedicated war and tool stone axes and were just eager to trade for the european metal hatchets which flooded the market which were just better tools. The native tomahawk was already a cultural item and simply got metal heads as time progressed. And for the colonial frontiersmen a hatchet was simply a good tool. And hatchets were commonly used in Europe. I don't get your point.>>65032420That's definitely not a tomahawk and arguably not even an axe.
>>65032260>he thinks hollywood is an accurate depiction of medieval warfareAnon do you think when the lords conscripted the peasantry they supplied swords? Do you think the peasantry could afford swords?The peasantry were expected to supply their own arms making hammers & axes very common as they were tools they had.
>>65032695>he thinksretard
>>65032696Sorry for assuming.
>>65032698>Sorryno
>>65032648small hand axes weren't as widely used as side arms by militaries or civilians as swords and large knives
>>65032403>spears cant have slingsSays who? Make them a bit smaller and you call them javelins and they come in bundles. Every hunter and every army used fucking spears. Axes are gay. This thread is gay. Everyone here is gay.
>>65032131Everybody had axes man, you can't build a campfire with a sword
>>65032695Peasants who were called to arms as part of their feudal obligations were usually free and secondly (on paper) rather well off. A 12th or 13th century source from somewhere around Franconia I can't find anymore was about the armament a Free Farmer (Freibauer) shall possess: shield, 2 spears, sword, helmet and an unspecified armor for the upper body. Of note is that it was still forbidden to carry those items for everyday use - for this large knives or a tool akin to a marlin spike were specified. There were also types of bondage relations where the peasant was to fight in the retinue of his league but in turn he was supplied by him.>>65032725Why should they? In a purely martial context a hatchet is worse than a sword or knife. And for military fieldcraft dedicated units of course had them in addition to other tools.
>>65032799you are gay and people used to carry spears. if you make them smaller it defeats the purpose of a spear>>65032807you can and people did >>65032812>Why should they?it requires less metal
>>65032807I can build a campfire with my bare hands. I dont need an axe unless i plan on building hundreds of campfires or a more advanced shelter. Even then i'd rather have a saw.
>>65032818>it requires less metalThat just wasn't an issue.
>>65032695Yeah except that's wrong. People would turn up with spears, other poles, or bows, along with swords or daggers. Nobody was showing up with their random farm tool hatchet, because it'd be a shit weapon and you, a medieval man, would know war was a part of life and make at least done minimal investment in being able to defend yourself. On top of this, axes and hammers for fighting are completely different from working tools, are vastly less convenient than the dagger or knife you WOULD own and wear day to day, and are generally much less useful to a man with little or no armor than literally any other type of weapon, as they're absolutely shit for defending yourself with.
Like all weapons, a tomahawk is a compromise and those compromises made the most sense in America where much of the fighting was done with bows and muskets/rifles, and was fought by smaller groups that had to logistically support themselves. So it made sense have a light weight, cheap, easy to maintain/repair useful innawoods tool that could be pressed into combat when needed. 98% of the time it's gonna be use as a tool. From personal experience I can say that a tomahawk is a very handy tool to have innawoods
>>65032250Actually, cutlasses were used more often to cut ropes than they were to cut lasses.
>>65032695>Do you think the peasantry could afford swords?Do you get your medieval knowledge from Game of Thrones?
