LordSemaj wrote: »

Riko_Futatabi wrote: »

While the Glass Battleaxe isn't too bad in this image, the Hammer and Maul are incredibly close to being the same size to the point that there is almost no difference! It looks to me that Battleaxes and Mauls need to be at least 20% bigger.

No, no, and no. The sizes are quite accurate. They are not supposed to be freakishly huge, that's an RPG trope that defies reality. Axes actually have more power than greatswords despite their smaller size because of the concentration of force in the head. It's literally a large weight on the end of a stick. Any larger and it would be too clumsy to swing.

A common misconception is that axe users held the lower end of the shaft and used centripetal force to swing their blade, making bigger and badder equal to better. This is false. Axe users grabbed the axe with hands near to the head of the blade itself, often resting a hand just below the head and touching the metal. The long shaft only exists for two-hander grasp to give a pulling motion in addition to the pushing swing which allows for more rotation and force. Basically, people would punch people with axes and use the other hand on the shaft to twist the blade into the swing for a carving motion.

Mauls are very much the same, being what is essentially an iron glove for your hand. A man receives less force swinging it like a baseball bat than placing a hand further up the shaft and rotating into the swing. Having too large a head in both cases makes this impractical. Greatswords have long blades because they are designed to be swung like a baseball bat with your hands grasping the hilt, though they were also made for piercing with a sharp point, but in exchange the blade is thinner steel and the sword far lighter weight, a few pounds at most, than the dense axe head and relies on its sharpness to do any damage. You cannot kill people with a dull sword, but you can certainly still kill people with a dull axe.

Greatswords historically are the giant weapons, it's the practical usage of them for reach and they rely on cutting or stabbing to actually do any damage. Battleaxes and Mauls were not known for reach and relied on their massive weight and better grip to deal lethal damage to a single point for maximum destruction against whatever they hit. They do not need a large size for this and it is in fact counter to being effective.

Source: Actual fifteenth century medieval fighting manuals


PS - It should also be noted that when the Renaissance arrived, the importance of reach became known and the Longsword evolved into the true two-handed swords while the Axe evolved into the Bardiche poleaxe. People still used normal personal one-handed axes though (which are extremely tiny I might add) because it's basically just a heavy sharpened metal blade on the end of a stick and super easy to make for your troops. It didn't need to be huge and unwieldy because even a four inch blade could breach armor and destroy a man's skull.

LordSemaj wrote: »

No, no, and no. The sizes are quite accurate. They are not supposed to be freakishly huge, that's an RPG trope that defies reality. Axes actually have more power than greatswords despite their smaller size because of the concentration of force in the head. It's literally a large weight on the end of a stick. Any larger and it would be too clumsy to swing.

A common misconception is that axe users held the lower end of the shaft and used centripetal force to swing their blade, making bigger and badder equal to better. This is false. Axe users grabbed the axe with hands near to the head of the blade itself, often resting a hand just below the head and touching the metal. The long shaft only exists for two-hander grasp to give a pulling motion in addition to the pushing swing which allows for more rotation and force. Basically, people would punch people with axes and use the other hand on the shaft to twist the blade into the swing for a carving motion.

Mauls are very much the same, being what is essentially an iron glove for your hand. A man receives less force swinging it like a baseball bat than placing a hand further up the shaft and rotating into the swing. Having too large a head in both cases makes this impractical. Greatswords have long blades because they are designed to be swung like a baseball bat with your hands grasping the hilt, though they were also made for piercing with a sharp point, but in exchange the blade is thinner steel and the sword far lighter weight, a few pounds at most, than the dense axe head and relies on its sharpness to do any damage. You cannot kill people with a dull sword, but you can certainly still kill people with a dull axe.

Greatswords historically are the giant weapons, it's the practical usage of them for reach and they rely on cutting or stabbing to actually do any damage. Battleaxes and Mauls were not known for reach and relied on their massive weight and better grip to deal lethal damage to a single point for maximum destruction against whatever they hit. They do not need a large size for this and it is in fact counter to being effective.

Source: Actual fifteenth century medieval fighting manuals


PS - It should also be noted that when the Renaissance arrived, the importance of reach became known and the Longsword evolved into the true two-handed swords while the Axe evolved into the Bardiche poleaxe. People still used normal personal one-handed axes though (which are extremely tiny I might add) because it's basically just a heavy sharpened metal blade on the end of a stick and super easy to make for your troops. It didn't need to be huge and unwieldy because even a four inch blade could breach armor and destroy a man's skull.