Dwarves Don't Use Axes

[Korto]

The cliché of a dwarf with an axe makes no sense. Which is a shame, because I like dwarves, and I like axes, but there it goes. My thinking runs like this:

Before I begin, I need to set the scene. I’m talking here about modern, cliched, D&D style dwarves. They live underground in mountains; mining and metal working. They are short, solid, tough and strong. They reproduce slowly. They are superlative craftsmen, and prefer non-living materials (metal and stone) over living (wood and leather).
It also isn’t an “Ideal” setting, where dwarves are “Good Guys” and Good Guys Would Never Attack Good Guys. Real world gritty rules.

Firstly, the most likely opponent for anyone to fight, dwarves included, is their own kind. They’re competing for the same space, competing for the same resources, they’re right there in their face. There’s more reasons to fight. Political. Religious. Do you think dwarves would give a tin-plated lead bit for whomever the goblins worship? But they could take the heresy of the neighbouring dwarf-city very seriously. So, in the main, they fight dwarves.

Secondly, weapons used is affected by the armour worn by your opponent, an opponent already determined to be usually other dwarves. Armour is affected by the terrain, and abilities of the user (and weapons used by your opponent, but I prefer not to start chasing my own tail here). With their strength, stolidness and metal-working abilities, dwarves are able to make and wear the best and heaviest metal armour in existence, and with the non-existent maneuverability offered by their normal terrain of tunnels and mountains, they have no reason not to wear it. Combine that with the low numbers and slow replacement rate due to dwarven reproduction, and you end up with an army where they all wear superior-quality heavy armour, down to the last foot-soldier.
While axes have some armour-piercing/concussive utility, picks are better at piercing heavy armour, and hammers are better for concussive purposes. There is no obvious reason to use a weapon which is not as good at either purpose.

Thirdly, lifestyle can affect weapons. People who are used to using an implement in normal life are inclined to use it in war, if it’s reasonable to do so. Dwarves mine rock and beat metal for a living. They can be expected to use hammers and picks, not axes to any great extent. While no doubt woodcutting does have to be done, it doesn’t have the same esteem as mining or smithing.

To conclude, I believe that dwarves use hammers and picks as “racial weapons”, not axes. The axe is not a traditional dwarven tool, even if they do have to use it, and it isn’t the best available tool to solve the problem they would normally face, ie, penetrating heavy dwarven armour.
The cliché of the dwarf with the crossbow makes sense, as to my understanding historically the crossbow was very powerful at short ranges, and loosed on a flat trajectory, but quickly lost power and was outranged by bows loosing at an angle. Obviously at the short ranges endemic to tunnels and mountains, the range of a bow is wasted and the crossbow easier to use in cramped confines. One can imagine how powerful the dwarven crossbow would be, given the need to punch through heavy dwarven armour!
One could speculate of the main dwarven weapon being the Warhammer, ie, a hammer-head backed by a pick spike, thereby combining an excellent concussive and piercing weapon in one package. This would exist in one-handed secondary-weapon versions, and heavy double-handed main-battle-line versions. There would also be heavy crossbows (arbalests, I believe), the users of which would traditionally carry steel pavises to shelter behind while reloading.

There would still be a place, however, for light weapons such as spears. While ineffective against the dwarven armour, they could prove very effective against the primitive barbarians dwarves normally share land with, such as goblins and orcs. Obviously, a hammer blow will quite effectively kill a goblin, but it would allow said goblin to get distressingly close, him and his horde of mates, and a big rock on the end of a stick also makes a pretty dandy heavy hammer. Better a long pointy stick that kills them just as dead but keeps them further away.
For the same reason, the dwarves would also have light crossbows. Punching a bolt right through a goblin every minute is not as helpful as merely killing one every five seconds. I could imagine the dwarves inventing the repeating crossbow just for such occasions.
The axe, however, still doesn’t have a use.

For these reasons, I am forced to conclude that while dwarves use hammers, they use picks and crossbows, and they may even use spears, they do not use axes.

[Simon_Jester]

The cliché of a dwarf with an axe makes no sense. Which is a shame, because I like dwarves, and I like axes, but there it goes. My thinking runs like this:

Before I begin, I need to set the scene. I’m talking here about modern, cliched, D&D style dwarves. They live underground in mountains; mining and metal working. They are short, solid, tough and strong. They reproduce slowly. They are superlative craftsmen, and prefer non-living materials (metal and stone) over living (wood and leather).
It also isn’t an “Ideal” setting, where dwarves are “Good Guys” and Good Guys Would Never Attack Good Guys. Real world gritty rules.

Firstly, the most likely opponent for anyone to fight, dwarves included, is their own kind. They’re competing for the same space, competing for the same resources, they’re right there in their face. There’s more reasons to fight. Political. Religious. Do you think dwarves would give a tin-plated lead bit for whomever the goblins worship? But they could take the heresy of the neighbouring dwarf-city very seriously. So, in the main, they fight dwarves.

This depends on demographics. Do dwarves fight among themselves? Probably, but how much depends on whether dwarves come in large 'nations' (individual dwarf fortress-city-states that control the surrounding territory, and entire regions are 'tiled' with such city-states).

What if individual dwarf fortress-cities are isolated and mostly surrounded by foes from another species, goblins or whatever? I don't mean to get political about this, but look at any real world country that's surrounded by hostile foreigners, or isolated colony in a hostile country. They don't fight among themselves, not so much, even when it would arguably be in the group's interest to disown some faction of themselves (we could talk about Israel and its factions, for instance). Instead, they devote their energies, training, and equipment to fighting the foreign nemesis. The foreigners present an existential threat and their cousins across the way don't.

Secondly, weapons used is affected by the armour worn by your opponent, an opponent already determined to be usually other dwarves. Armour is affected by the terrain, and abilities of the user (and weapons used by your opponent, but I prefer not to start chasing my own tail here). With their strength, stolidness and metal-working abilities, dwarves are able to make and wear the best and heaviest metal armour in existence, and with the non-existent maneuverability offered by their normal terrain of tunnels and mountains, they have no reason not to wear it. Combine that with the low numbers and slow replacement rate due to dwarven reproduction, and you end up with an army where they all wear superior-quality heavy armour, down to the last foot-soldier.
While axes have some armour-piercing/concussive utility, picks are better at piercing heavy armour, and hammers are better for concussive purposes. There is no obvious reason to use a weapon which is not as good at either purpose.

One likely weapon to see is the pollaxe, which combined the pick and the axe blade in a tolerably wieldy form. Look at the weapons real medieval knights fought each other with, if you're convinced dwarves will spend most of their time fighting armor-plated enemies.

Thirdly, lifestyle can affect weapons. People who are used to using an implement in normal life are inclined to use it in war, if it’s reasonable to do so. Dwarves mine rock and beat metal for a living. They can be expected to use hammers and picks, not axes to any great extent. While no doubt woodcutting does have to be done, it doesn’t have the same esteem as mining or smithing.

Using any weapon of war is very different from using a similar tool. A blacksmith uses a hammer; that does not mean they can fight competently with a warhammer- which will be much lighter than the hammer he's used to, but he'll be using it against something that fights back. Iron doesn't normally fight back when you beat it against an anvil.

This is not to say that tools aren't dangerous as improvised weapons- they are. But the fact that a dwarven master smith uses a hammer in his daily work does not mean it's the weapon he'd choose for a fight. And it certainly wouldn't be the same hammer, any more than he'd use a claw hammer for metalworking.

(not that you claimed the opposite, regarding my last sentence, just thought i'd say it)

To conclude, I believe that dwarves use hammers and picks as “racial weapons”, not axes. The axe is not a traditional dwarven tool, even if they do have to use it, and it isn’t the best available tool to solve the problem they would normally face, ie, penetrating heavy dwarven armour.
The cliché of the dwarf with the crossbow makes sense, as to my understanding historically the crossbow was very powerful at short ranges, and loosed on a flat trajectory, but quickly lost power and was outranged by bows loosing at an angle. Obviously at the short ranges endemic to tunnels and mountains, the range of a bow is wasted and the crossbow easier to use in cramped confines. One can imagine how powerful the dwarven crossbow would be, given the need to punch through heavy dwarven armour!

Crossbows are quite effective at long ranges; what makes the difference is rate of fire and the quality of personnel. Professional crossbowmen weren't such a bad match for professional longbowmen, but demoralized, exhausted crossbowmen were no match for fresh, highly trained longbowmen.

That said, the crossbow is a weapon which takes mechanical ingenuity, and rewards craftsmanship. It can be made almost arbitrarily powerful, either to penetrate armor plate or to be a threat to big, naturally well-protected creatures (stereotypical trolls/ogres/whatever). And it doesn't require the kind of stature and long reach that an equivalent longbow demands: a strong, stubby little guy will have trouble drawing a high-powered bow and arrow, but might have less trouble with a crossbow.

So I agree with this, if not for all the same reasons.

[Korto]

This depends on demographics. Do dwarves fight among themselves? Probably, but how much depends on whether dwarves come in large 'nations' (individual dwarf fortress-city-states that control the surrounding territory, and entire regions are 'tiled' with such city-states).

What if individual dwarf fortress-cities are isolated and mostly surrounded by foes from another species, goblins or whatever? I don't mean to get political about this, but look at any real world country that's surrounded by hostile foreigners, or isolated colony in a hostile country. They don't fight among themselves, not so much, even when it would arguably be in the group's interest to disown some faction of themselves (we could talk about Israel and its factions, for instance). Instead, they devote their energies, training, and equipment to fighting the foreign nemesis. The foreigners present an existential threat and their cousins across the way don't.

I will retreat now from my OVEREMPHASIS of dwarven infighting and concede your point here that at any one time they could very well be fighting more against others than themselves. However, for the entire history of the dwarves, there is likely to have been conflict between themselves at times; this is not necessarily true of any other individual race as there is no logical need for any other individual race to be in constant contact with the dwarves, while the dwarves must always be in contact with themselves.

One likely weapon to see is the pollaxe, which combined the pick and the axe blade in a tolerably wieldy form. Look at the weapons real medieval knights fought each other with, if you're convinced dwarves will spend most of their time fighting armor-plated enemies.

With the tangle real history (as opposed to D&D simplifications) made of medieval names and designs, you will find that a common design for a pollaxe was a pole, with a spike (fluke, or pick) on one side, and a hammer head on the other! Some various designs of pollaxe, with a hammer-headed one a little more than 3/4 down I also heard on a documentory about the "Duelling Warhammer" being the popular "go-to" weapon for a time. This was a two-handed pollaxe with a hammer-head and spike (or "pick" as the dwarves like to call it), about five feet tall and used by knights on foot. This was during the time of reasonably reliable cannon, but I'm afraid I can't remember better than that, and whenever I put in "warhammer" as a search I get pages of Games Workshop.

I will however point out that I did include some thoughts on their responses to other, less-well-armoured, races. Basically spears and light repeating crossbows. Why let the savage scum get near enough to dirty your shiny plate?

Thirdly, lifestyle can affect weapons. People who are used to using an implement in normal life are inclined to use it in war, if it’s reasonable to do so. Dwarves mine rock and beat metal for a living. They can be expected to use hammers and picks, not axes to any great extent. While no doubt woodcutting does have to be done, it doesn’t have the same esteem as mining or smithing.

Using any weapon of war is very different from using a similar tool. A blacksmith uses a hammer; that does not mean they can fight competently with a warhammer- which will be much lighter than the hammer he's used to, but he'll be using it against something that fights back. Iron doesn't normally fight back when you beat it against an anvil.

This is not to say that tools aren't dangerous as improvised weapons- they are. But the fact that a dwarven master smith uses a hammer in his daily work does not mean it's the weapon he'd choose for a fight. And it certainly wouldn't be the same hammer, any more than he'd use a claw hammer for metalworking.

(not that you claimed the opposite, regarding my last sentence, just thought i'd say it)

What I was thinking, and perhaps failed to express adequately, is that certain tools can occupy a higher regard in a society than others, and if those tools are just as good (or almost as good) for a task as another, then they would be chosen for that task over another. So if, for instance, a modified hammer head is just as effective as a modified axe head on a pollaxe (or warhammer, as I named it), then with the hammer occupying a higher standing in dwarven society they would naturally think of it first.

Crossbows are quite effective at long ranges; what makes the difference is rate of fire and the quality of personnel. Professional crossbowmen weren't such a bad match for professional longbowmen, but demoralized, exhausted crossbowmen were no match for fresh, highly trained longbowmen.

That said, the crossbow is a weapon which takes mechanical ingenuity, and rewards craftsmanship. It can be made almost arbitrarily powerful, either to penetrate armor plate or to be a threat to big, naturally well-protected creatures (stereotypical trolls/ogres/whatever). And it doesn't require the kind of stature and long reach that an equivalent longbow demands: a strong, stubby little guy will have trouble drawing a high-powered bow and arrow, but might have less trouble with a crossbow.

So I agree with this, if not for all the same reasons.

I had read, in the Encyclopedia Brittanica I believe, that the medieval crossbow suffered from a few problems due to just the type of weapon it was.
1) Bolts were stubby and unaerodynamic compared to arrows
2) When loosed, the crossbow "slapped" the back of the bolt, compared to the constant firm contact of the bow
3) Very short draw length compared to a bow, so much less time to transfer power, therefore the crossbow had to pour power on very quickly instead of being able to put in in more slowly and steadily.
What I read gave me the impression crossbows have since improved out of sight. I am not an expert, and I'm happy to be corrected on these points.

[Simon_Jester]

I will retreat now from my OVEREMPHASIS of dwarven infighting and concede your point here that at any one time they could very well be fighting more against others than themselves. However, for the entire history of the dwarves, there is likely to have been conflict between themselves at times; this is not necessarily true of any other individual race as there is no logical need for any other individual race to be in constant contact with the dwarves, while the dwarves must always be in contact with themselves.

Then again, there's nothing stopping the dwarves from training to use different types of weapon against different types of enemies, or from one generation of dwarves (who live in a time of racial security when the biggest threats are other dwarves) adopting one kind of weapon while other generations (who don't) adopt different weapons.

One likely weapon to see is the pollaxe, which combined the pick and the axe blade in a tolerably wieldy form. Look at the weapons real medieval knights fought each other with, if you're convinced dwarves will spend most of their time fighting armor-plated enemies.

With the tangle real history (as opposed to D&D simplifications) made of medieval names and designs, you will find that a common design for a pollaxe was a pole, with a spike (fluke, or pick) on one side, and a hammer head on the other!

I am aware. My point being that either way works- it is often the pick end of the pollaxe that would be most useful against armor plate, not the hammerhead.

I will however point out that I did include some thoughts on their responses to other, less-well-armoured, races. Basically spears and light repeating crossbows. Why let the savage scum get near enough to dirty your shiny plate?

Spears are awkward in tunnel fighting, in my opinion, because you're unlikely to see tunnels wide enough to form a phalanx-like barrier of spearmen many ranks wide and deep. Push of pike is less of a factor compared to "Horatius at the Bridge."

What I was thinking, and perhaps failed to express adequately, is that certain tools can occupy a higher regard in a society than others, and if those tools are just as good (or almost as good) for a task as another, then they would be chosen for that task over another. So if, for instance, a modified hammer head is just as effective as a modified axe head on a pollaxe (or warhammer, as I named it), then with the hammer occupying a higher standing in dwarven society they would naturally think of it first.

Possibly, but it's not a foregone conclusion. For example, the most prestigious tools in medieval Europe were, what... I don't know, what did most people use regularly, scythes, axes, things like that? And yet the most prestigious and symbolic weapon of the era was the sword, which resembles no tool- precisely because it was a purely martial implement, one wielded by warrior aristocrats.

I had read, in the Encyclopedia Brittanica I believe, that the medieval crossbow suffered from a few problems due to just the type of weapon it was.
1) Bolts were stubby and unaerodynamic compared to arrows
2) When loosed, the crossbow "slapped" the back of the bolt, compared to the constant firm contact of the bow
3) Very short draw length compared to a bow, so much less time to transfer power, therefore the crossbow had to pour power on very quickly instead of being able to put in in more slowly and steadily.
What I read gave me the impression crossbows have since improved out of sight. I am not an expert, and I'm happy to be corrected on these points.

I would not rely on this, preferring to consult someone with personal experience with both weapons...

[Korto]

Spears are awkward in tunnel fighting, in my opinion, because you're unlikely to see tunnels wide enough to form a phalanx-like barrier of spearmen many ranks wide and deep. Push of pike is less of a factor compared to "Horatius at the Bridge."

Short spears, however, perhaps as long as a dwarf is tall, but would still give them a little reach over a similar sized opponent with a swinging weapon. Which I now realise could be simply done by sticking a spearhead on the end of the warhammer, just like the majority of pollaxes. d'oh!

[Formless]

If you're ready to eschew with cliche's and inject some reality into fantasy races, then its worth pointing out that a lot of your assumptions are based on the idea of dwarves as Tolkienesque Mountain Kings whose primary professions of note are mining and metalworking. But that need not be the environment you find dwarves in; in fact, it strikes me as an undeveloped idea of what a society of non-humans should looks like. Its still a mythological/folklore creature at that point.

Think about it-- every advanced society that is interested in mining deep underground is going to need agriculture to support itself. This means they need some sort of crops that grow well in the mountains (you might see Incan/Peruvian crops such as potatoes and quinoa or some variety of rice-- climate depending). Structures such as terraces are going to be a common sight wherever dwarves live if such is the case. If the major crop is rice, expect weapons and tactics appropriate to wet ground if not actual swamps.

Alternatively, if they don't have crops that grow well in mountainous climes, there will be dwarven settlements in the valleys, foothills, or plains whose inhabitants spend their lives working fields full of wheat and other grains to support the rich and powerful Mountain Kings. If lifestyle effects weaponry (and more on that later) expect there to be weapons derived from agricultural tools, like polearms. Oh, and being peasants, there is no guarantee they will be nearly as heavily armored as the Mountain Kings. This also means there will be increased contact between dwarves and whatever other peoples are in the setting such as humans, elves, hobbits, gnomes, orcs, etc.. More contact means more chances for conflict with non-dwarves. As discussed here, physiological differences can greatly effect how you fight (E.G. an elf is going to have a serious reach advantage over a dwarf). This may mean axes-- pole axes. Or perhaps a version of an ax that a human wouldn't think of making that takes advantage of dwarven strengths, like leverage.

If you are convinced that they will be mountain dwellers, and give them appropriate crops, there is no reason they should ever be fighting in the tunnels of their own goddamn mines. There would either have to be a serious breach in security, or the dwarves' enemies would have to go through the effort of digging their own tunnels into the place. Unless the Mountain Kings invest heavily into fortifications, then its far easier to just attack from the outside, mountainous terrain or no mountainous terrain (again, remember that they have to do agriculture somewhere). If they do have to fight in tunnels, it would most likely be a result of siege warfare. If it has gotten to that point, the dwarves have probably figured out better weapons for the job.

Speaking of, I said I would deal with lifestyle. Warfare often isn't dictated by lifestyle, or at least not the way you think it is. If the dwarves have such great craftsmen, why wouldn't they start engineering dedicated weapons for their regular soldiers, like good old fashioned swords? Most weapons were influenced not by lifestyle, but by military necessity; like armor penetration or to deal with unique threats such as fortifications, cavalry, and war at sea. So why would they have a "racial weapon"? The only reason I can think of is culture, and once you get into that there are all sorts of reasons axes are just as good as anything else for a traditional dwarven weapon.

For example, medieval warriors often passed on weapons for several generations-- you might end up going into battle with the same sword your great grandfather used. Could be the same thing with dwarves-- they might use axes because their axes were passed down from a time where the clearing of the forests to make room for those mines and mountain settlements was still happening. Or they might choose axes as a way of differentiating themselves from Elves or whomever, giving the weapon symbolic value. And of course, if mining has had an effect on their weapons of choice, why wouldn't you see dwarves using weapons inspired by shovels and entrenching tools? Say, something like the Shaolin Spade.

Lastly, there are frank contradictions in your idea of a dwarf. Since they are based on Nordic mythology, that isn't too surprising, but if you want gritty realism you need something more consistent. First of all, if dwarves reproduce any slower than humans, they aren't going to go to war if they can avoid it. They need to be able to replace their lost population, and that's a difficult task when you take thirty years to come to age (to pick a number out of my ass). They would be quickly overrun by races that breed like crazy, like goblins are sometimes depicted. This is also a problem with elves as traditionally depicted, BTW.

Why don't they like organic materials? Wood is plentiful and easy to work with, and beasts of burden are also quite useful in mining activities to transport ore. Not to mention their use in agriculture (are you sensing a theme?). Also, its kinda hard to make tools like picks without using wood for the handle.

Lastly, your idea that dwarves would mostly come in contact with other dwarves clashes with the very idea that they are huge mining aficionados and "superlative craftsmen". Why would they be mining and producing so much stuff if not to sell and trade it to others? Trade brings people into contact with one another; and where there is contact, there will be conflicts, even if its merely raiders attacking trade routs leading into the hills.

Oh, and one more thing? Fantasy worlds frequently feature monsters like dragons, trolls, and giant fifty foot what-evers, and depict heroes fighting and killing these beasts (a tradition that goes all the way back to the Homeric epics and farther, actually). Maybe dwarven adventurers find axes to be a particularly effective monster-slaying weapon? Who knows. Something to play around with.

[Simon_Jester]

I would expect slow-breeding races to fight as if they prize their lives. At most they'd fight defensively in environments that lend themselves to very favorable casualty ratios- always fight from fortifications if you possibly can, never try to take their fortifications until you have a cunning plan to minimize your losses.

More likely they'd fight like guerillas, and if at all possible by proxy. You'd see massive use of misdirection, ambush, luring the enemy into a kill zone then sniggering and detonating the claymore mines from around the corner. Very little 'stand out and hack at them in the open.'

This is one reason why elves living in forests and using bows can make sense. Forest terrain heavily favors the defender who knows the territory like the back of their hand (elves, being long-lived, can come to know very large areas this way). Archery favors skirmish tactics, which you're using anyway. And the forest supports all sorts of animals and (in a fantasy setting) supernatural creatures, which you can use as allies, so that you don't end up doing all the dying.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

According to Terry Pratchett, a proper Dwarf axe has a pick on one side, for the extraction of valuable minerals, and an axe blade on the other side, because the people who own land with valuable minerals on it can be so unreasonable sometimes.

That said, I've always seen dwarves as being hammer users, along with crossbows, short swords, hand axes, and explosives.

[Zixinus]

While axes have some armour-piercing/concussive utility, picks are better at piercing heavy armour, and hammers are better for concussive purposes. There is no obvious reason to use a weapon which is not as good at either purpose.

From what I remember about WW1 and tunnel fighting, you also have to consider that they may prefer shorter weapons that do not require space to be swung: daggers mostly come to mind (and the famous "shortened sword that has a arm-guard with knucklespikes).

Even with armour, that makes some sense, as there are always kinks or openings in any armor. Of course, reaching them would be a problem.

Other weapons, like maces, could also come into play.
I also have trouble figuring out how axes are good against armor. Hitting an axe head against an armored plate sounds like only a good way to blunt the axehead.

There is also the possibility of dwarves simply trying to adopt new weapons to combat their heavily-armoured tunnel-fighting brethren (or otherwise).

This actually can be quite a problem: you need something harder than metal to penetrate metal. The hardness of metal can be varied, but hitting hard metal against equally hard metal is going to be ineffective at best and comedic at worst. Unless you start taking diamond-tipped weapons or something (Minecraft comes to mind ironically), then you have a problem. There is only so far you can go with tricks like warhammers transmitting shock or spiked weapons.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, it's fair to say that for thicknesses of metal armor that a man can wear, a man can swing or jab with enough force to put a point of the same metal through the armor. But it is not easy. Picks and weapons with pick heads would dominate if dwarves are seriously worried about fighting other dwarves a lot. There would also, yes, probably be a booming industry in the production of daggers and other very close-up weapons.

The bit about Pratchett's description of dwarven mining picks doesn't strike me as so wise- a good tool for breaking up rock with the pick will be too heavy and unwieldy to use in combat. There's a difference between a mining pick and a battleaxe in weight, much as there's a difference between a warhammer and a six-pound sledgehammer.

[Thanas]

Dwarfes need axes so that they can fell the trees of those damned elves.

[LaCroix]

1) Bolts were stubby and unaerodynamic compared to arrows
2) When loosed, the crossbow "slapped" the back of the bolt, compared to the constant firm contact of the bow
3) Very short draw length compared to a bow, so much less time to transfer power, therefore the crossbow had to pour power on very quickly instead of being able to put in in more slowly and steadily.
What I read gave me the impression crossbows have since improved out of sight. I am not an expert, and I'm happy to be corrected on these points.

Point 1 = negligible

Actually, from the POV of an archer/bowyer, the crossbow is the logical conclusion to a certain dilemma for small bows.

The base mechanic of a short bow (just like a crossbow - short CB) is at a mechanic disadvantage to a proper bow. A proper bow needs a certain limb-length to achieve maximum efficiency (let's not get into horse-bows, as they are a different kind of beef)

Generally spoken, everything longbow-ish under a total length of 60' is going to drastically lose performance for a full arrow.
You might say that a stubby-armed Dwarf won't be able to draw a 28' arrow, anyway. Right! A quick estimate tells me that the would be closer to an awkward 20' maximum draw, which means their bows would be more like 45' long to achieve maximum efficiency.

Where's the problem, you might say - it's physics. To achieve an equal energy to a 130lbs war-bow (which is needed to make sense against armoured opponents), with the shorter draw, this bow must now be more like in the 200-250 lbs area. This is due to the fact that there just isn't enough way available to transform the stored energy into speed. This would also mean a brutal hand-shock that might break your hand and bow after loosening an arrow - the stored energy must go somewhere.

This is almost impossible for wood, except for rare branches of yew or osage. Thus - it is time for steel springs. Technically, it is possible, but this will exceed the strength (and skeletal integrity) of most shooters. You would start looking very asymmetrical if you use this bow too long.

What now? Well, you got either a short bow that goes pew-pew on most armour and shields, or a beast that takes two Dwarves to shoot properly. Well, you like mechanics, and are already firmly in CB territory, so you might as well ditch the bow for a CB, which has the same limitations, but can overcome it by mechanical means.

Of course, with the extremely short draw, CBs are even less efficient, so you need like 8-10 times the power to achieve similar projectile speed, but that is manageable with a cranequin.(This restriction was only overcome in modern times with compound materials and design which can handle the powers needed much more efficiently and have actually reduced this to 2 or 3 times and allows for lever-span CBs to achieve parity with bows. )

That's why medieval war CBs for armoured targets usually ranged in the 500lbs range (still manageable with a goat-foot), and up to 1000 were no exception (18lbs heavy weapons for single user, but cranequin needed - the equivalent of a LMG. I even heard of single pieces that had 2000 lbs, but those are closing into artillery territory.)

Everything else was only for sport or "motivational" warfare.

[Formless]

From what I remember about WW1 and tunnel fighting, you also have to consider that they may prefer shorter weapons that do not require space to be swung: daggers mostly come to mind (and the famous "shortened sword that has a arm-guard with knucklespikes).

As long as we're taking inspiration from WWI (and I still don't expect tunnel fighting to come into play very often except as a tactic in siege warfare), if All Quiet on the Western Front is to be believed, the most effective CQC weapon readily available to solders there was the humble entrenching tool (in other words, the short shovels they dug the trenches with). Its was effective enough and available enough that dedicated US army combatives just for it exist. Shovels are used in both mining and agriculture, and would make very attractive weapons to dwarves. I can see various weapons being developed from them, from long polarms like the Shaolin spade (but perhaps with a pointier blade) to short hafted, wide bladed weapons for use underground, and weapons with blades at 90 degree angles to the haft (since folding blades will probably not be strong enough for dwarven sensibilities even if they can make them).

For kicks, here's a video of the Chinese showing off 101 uses for their army's entrenching tool:

I also have trouble figuring out how axes are good against armor. Hitting an axe head against an armored plate sounds like only a good way to blunt the axehead.

Depends on what kind of ax it derives from. A thick splitting maul (which a lot of fantasy axes appear to be based on) such as this wouldn't really need all that much in the way of sharpness, and might split through helmets and shields just fine. It could be something you would get tired out from using for long periods, though.

There is also the possibility of dwarves simply trying to adopt new weapons to combat their heavily-armoured tunnel-fighting brethren (or otherwise).

Frankly, this.

Also, if the dwarves trade weapons to other societies, they may end up using a lot of the same swords and pikes as their human clients. Having a lot of weapons ready fast is a good thing sometimes.

[Zixinus]

I forgot about the chinese multi-function axe (and now that I've seen that video again, I want one again).

You make an excellent argument for making dwarven war-shovels. After all, dwarves would logically would have to deal with earth and sand and similar stuff too, so a shovel would be a familiar tool for miners. If dwarves expect a tunnel-in or something nasty to be found while they dig their tunnels, a shovel modified for combat might be handy.

However, the thing about tunnel-fighting: I'm thinking of the most ideal weapons and I believe the shovel was so highly remarked because it was wide-spread (it was standard issue, no?), not necessarily because it was the most ideal to use in tight quarters.

[Simon_Jester]

The Shaolin spade's sheer... uniqueness makes me doubt its utility as a weapon.

Millions of people fought for thousands of years in the ancient world, and there was a lot of Darwinian pressure to pick optimal weapons and defenses. Most of the really useful weapons seem to have been invented more than once, or spread far and wide from their point of origin: sword, axe, spear, mace, shields for personal defense, and so on.

Whereas no nation-sized body of professional warriors ever used shovel-like tools as their main weapon. The reason sharpened entrenching tools became such a popular close combat weapon in World War One is that they were adequate and everybody had one- a soldier needed his shovel as badly as he needed his rifle. Inventing a better specialized hand-to-hand weapon would probably have been possible, but it would have been expensive to make them for everyone and a lot of soldiers wouldn't bother carrying the extra weight.

This isn't to say you couldn't have dwarves fighting with stylized, heavily modified shovels (which would probably be pretty useless for digging)... but to me, it sounds more like an interesting quirk to try once than anything you're likely to see a lot of.

[Formless]

However, the thing about tunnel-fighting: I'm thinking of the most ideal weapons and I believe the shovel was so highly remarked because it was wide-spread (it was standard issue, no?), not necessarily because it was the most ideal to use in tight quarters.

Well, here's what All Quiet has to say:

But the bayonet has practically lost its importance. It is usually the fashion now to charge with bombs and spades only. The sharpened spade is a more handy and many-sided weapon; not only can it be used for jabbing a man under the chin, but it is much better for striking with because of its greater weight; and if one hits between the neck and shoulder it easily cleaves as far down as the chest. The bayonet frequently jams on the thrust and then a man has to kick hard on the other fellow's belly to pull it out again; and in the interval he may easily get one himself. And what's more the blade often gets broken off.

And keep in mind that while the events of the book are fictionalized, they were written by an actual french veteran of the trenches.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dwarfes need axes so that they can fell the trees of those damned elves.

And cut said trees into timbers to prop up all the mines they dig.

[Simon_Jester]

That the sharpened shovel supplanted the bayonet does not mean it would supplant more normal hand-to-hand combat weapons, if those weapons were the universally available norm instead of being rare as they were in a World War One soldier's kit.

[Formless]

The Shaolin spade's sheer... uniqueness makes me doubt its utility as a weapon.

Millions of people fought for thousands of years in the ancient world, and there was a lot of Darwinian pressure to pick optimal weapons and defenses. Most of the really useful weapons seem to have been invented more than once, or spread far and wide from their point of origin: sword, axe, spear, mace, shields for personal defense, and so on.

Whereas no nation-sized body of professional warriors ever used shovel-like tools as their main weapon. The reason sharpened entrenching tools became such a popular close combat weapon in World War One is that they were adequate and everybody had one- a soldier needed his shovel as badly as he needed his rifle. Inventing a better specialized hand-to-hand weapon would probably have been possible, but it would have been expensive to make them for everyone and a lot of soldiers wouldn't bother carrying the extra weight.

This isn't to say you couldn't have dwarves fighting with stylized, heavily modified shovels (which would probably be pretty useless for digging)... but to me, it sounds more like an interesting quirk to try once than anything you're likely to see a lot of.

There are four problems with this argument.

First, this argument doesn't really apply to polarms. Aside from the staff and spear, polarms have no real standard configuration beyond the general "sharp thing on a long stick". This is true in both Europe and China, and everywhere else polearms were used. Regional variation is just that big.

Second... well, I will touch on this in a moment. *

Third, the shaolin didn't train with these weapons just for show. They really did use them. Wonder, then, why did they decide to preserve this particular weapon and the relevant training forms if it didn't work?

Fourth, you are strawmanning. More on this later, but I am not advocating the Shaolin spade as a dwarf's weapon. I am advocating a weapon that never existed in real life, one which is inspired by the modern entrenching tool and the Shaolin spade as the closest approximate weapons that do exist.

That the sharpened shovel supplanted the bayonet does not mean it would supplant more normal hand-to-hand combat weapons, if those weapons were the universally available norm instead of being rare as they were in a World War One soldier's kit.

* Your definition of "normal" weapons is, to be blunt, biased and narrow minded. You can talk about how a weapon seems "too exotic" or more cutely "too unique" (because all swords are the same, am I right? ), but only if you know absolutely nothing about its strengths or weaknesses, and ignore the environment that spawned it.

Think about it. Where is the evidence that the sword is a "universal" weapon? That the ax is a universal weapon? That the shield is a universal tool of war? Oh, right, they aren't. You pulled those three assertions out of your ass. Heck, you even forget several important weapon archetypes. Staffs? Polearms (that aren't spears)? Where is the bow and arrow on your list, Neelix? Or throwing weapons? Ranged weapons of any kind? You even left out goddamn knives and daggers! How the Hell do you do that?

You can make the same argument against the effectiveness of the European flail. Doesn't actually make it a valid argument, because it rests on an untested hypothesis-- that swords, axes, and shields are the universal default (but somehow knives and arrows aren't ), and that all hand to hand weapons must preform like they do. Oh, never mind the quote that talks about entrenching tools being used in a manner similar to both an ax and a spear; what does a World War One veteran know about close quarters combat? Or the video showing entrenching tools being used like fucking axes too, forget about that. And the fact that bayonets are basically short spears, one of the "default" weapons on the list? Forget about it. The requested need for a weapon appropriate for cramped tunnel fighting? Don't read that! Simon is here to tell everyone what standards must be met!

My argument has to do with the kinds of tools dwarves would likely think of adapting as weapon that they have laying around. You never addressed this. In fact, you even stated that they might make heavily modified shovels that can no longer dig... as if that wasn't exactly what I was describing! You describe shovels as an expedient weapon that everyone used because there weren't more "normal" weapons available... in the same breath as you say that they supplanted bayonets, standard issue equipment in WWI! And in a thread where other WWI weapons were mentioned already (the trench knife) too boot!

Do not grandstand in front of me, motherfucker. I know exactly how short a one Simon_Jester really is.

[Korto]

Formless, you bring up some good points about how dwarves could be if we eschew the cliche, except I believe you miss the point of what I was doing, which was to take the cliche dwarf (including their having a "racial weapon"), and the cliche of them having the axe as that racial weapon, and then seeing if the two made sense together.
Indeed, throw out the cliche and I could have dwarves running around in hide loincloths and blowguns, and could justify it, if I wanted.
I'm sorry if people feel that was a bit obscure from my OP.

Can we also agree that just because the dwarves having a "racial weapon" is a parameter, it doesn't rule them out of using a range of other weapons when the occasion, or personal preferance, merits it? The sword is an icon for knights, but they also used other weapons.

Simon, when you're talking about guerilla warfare and heavy fortifications in the same post, are you thinking about "commando" strike groups infiltrating out, laying traps and ambushes, and then falling back if put under pressure to their mighty fortress? Because I can definetly see that. Of course, they'll still need some kind of personal weapons, although such a style may cause any "racial weapon" to be the crossbow, I suppose.

From what I remember about WW1 and tunnel fighting, you also have to consider that they may prefer shorter weapons that do not require space to be swung: daggers mostly come to mind (and the famous "shortened sword that has a arm-guard with knucklespikes).

Even with armour, that makes some sense, as there are always kinks or openings in any armor. Of course, reaching them would be a problem.

When it comes to comparing WW1 fighting with dwarven fighting, a major difference to remember is that the dwarves are wearing plate armour likely as good, if not better, then the best plate a man ever wore. There are massive differences in fighting someone with a steel helmet, and someone wearing steel head to toe. The weapons used have to suit.
I have heard of stillettos being used against armour, slipping in the gaps, but only after the knight had already been immobilised. I believe that if you had two men in plate, one had a dagger and the other had a short war hammer, the one with the dagger would normally lose, as he would have to try to specifically target gaps, while the other is just trying to hit him hard and square (although the dagger-wielder could grappel).

Other weapons, like maces, could also come into play.
I also have trouble figuring out how axes are good against armor. Hitting an axe head against an armored plate sounds like only a good way to blunt the axehead.

Indeed, a mace and hammer head of a warhammer seem to me to be basically the same thing, and wikipedia (sorry) has this to say:

War hammers were developed as a consequence of the ever more prevalent surface-hardened steel surfacing of wrought iron armors of the late medieval battlefields during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The surface of the armour was now as hard as the edge of a blade, so a blade tended to ricochet. Swords, or the blade of a battleaxe, were likely only to give a glancing blow, losing much of the impact, especially on the high curvature of the helmet. The war hammer could deliver the full force to the target.

War hammers, especially when mounted on a pole, could damage without penetrating the armour. In particular, they transmitted the impact through even the thickest helmet and caused concussions. A blade or spike tended to be used against other parts of the body where the armour was thinner, and penetration was easier, than through the helmet.

LaCroix, thank you for the information. The physics stuff matches what I remember reading at the time (I was looking into shortbows, longbows, and crossbows, as I was re-doing the D&D weapons). I remember reading how, assuming an equal pull bow, the longbow was able to put more power into the arrow, it could propel a heavier arrow with force and penetrate heavier armour; however the shortbow has a higher maximum string velocity due to the limbs suffering less from inertia (the brittanica said only "inertia", I assume rotational inertia), so it could propel a light arrow faster and therefore further. Longbows now in my game do more damage, but shortbows shoot a lot further.

Formless, others, for the reason given above, namely the difference in fighting someone in light and heavy armour, I feel WW1 is really a red-herring, including their war-shovel. Also, in WW1 any hand-to-hand weapon was strictly a secondary consideration, which isn't to say it was crap, but that it couldn't afford to add too much weight or bulk, compared to their main weapon. This is not true for the dwarves at the period they're set in the OP cliche.
I will concede however that the entrenching tool you showed would be easily modified into a fine heavy armour/light armour weapon (pick spike/sharpened shovel blade), ending up looking like a short pollaxe with a transverse blade, and under my own argument, assuming the dwarves had the entrenching tool, the "War-Trencher" could be their "racial weapon". But it's still not an axe!

Huh. If (and I don't know if), a transverse blade is less effective then a straight blade in combat, then the blade would have been changed to straight, which would then make it an axe, backed with a spike. I will concede that possibility, assuming a straight blade is more effective.

[Spoonist]

Axes vs armor is both a steel vs iron thing and a plate vs chain thing.

When it was iron chain mails, axes was much more effecient since you only built the head out of metal - a sword is a very expensive thing and takes a much better grade metal and thus tech to do properly.
Then when the transition went into steel chain mails and steel plates, axes went redundant.

But the best use of all for an axe in battle is to shatter the opponents shield - which usually was wood.

As a minor historical note of interest the so called axebearing varangian guard which became the proto-meme of the axe wealding northman, from which we derived the axewielding bearded dwarf, they did not use hand-axes but polearms. Mostly spears, but the huscarl weapon that gave them the nick-name axebearers is too long to be a proper axe - instead if we use a modern perspective its a polearm with an axe-head.
Why this is important was that they were more likely to face armored opponents in bysans than they were in scandinavia/brittanium.

[LaCroix]

LaCroix, thank you for the information. The physics stuff matches what I remember reading at the time (I was looking into shortbows, longbows, and crossbows, as I was re-doing the D&D weapons). I remember reading how, assuming an equal pull bow, the longbow was able to put more power into the arrow, it could propel a heavier arrow with force and penetrate heavier armour; however the shortbow has a higher maximum string velocity due to the limbs suffering less from inertia (the brittanica said only "inertia", I assume rotational inertia), so it could propel a light arrow faster and therefore further. Longbows now in my game do more damage, but shortbows shoot a lot further.

Actually, a short-bow of "longbow type" ( D-form) will either:
Use the increased limb speed (smaller limb = lighter limb = less inertia&more acceleration) and a much lighter (and faster) arrow to have about 70-80% of the range a long bow of the same draw-weight has. At close range, they might actually do more damage than a 'long' longbow (with arrows, momentum is the thing you are interested in) due to this higher speed, but light arrows bleed their speed off faster, so you end up with less range and massive diminished damage at 'long' range, while the heavier arrow of the longer bow will be devastating at almost any range. (The speed these things pick up in descent from apogee is terrifying...)

Also, the short bow is easier to wield on horseback or in dense forest.

In a compound/recurve/horsebow style bow ( C-form), the bow will have a mechanical advantage due to the angled levers, which will cause a massive spike in efficiency due to less "stacking"

What is "stacking"? When a straight bow is drawn, the string to limb angle opens up and causes mechanical loss (power to pull further grows exponentially, but most of this is not stored). The C-form bow will "uncurl" while drawn, keeping the string angle in the sweet-zone much longer. Also, due to the build form, it's initial tension is much higher, due to the uncurling needed to even string them, which gives them much more power.

This means that the horse-bow will (at the same draw weight) fire an as heavy arrow much faster, or an a bit lighter arrow (there is a lower limit due to the need of the arrow surviving the launch) much faster - higher damage at short range for targeted shots, and still deadly force at a range that exceeds the longbow's.

Look at this stolen graph.
From my experience, these bows would be about equal in range. Now imagine shifting the recurve so that they have an equal final draw-weight. Now compare the total energy (area below the line) and you'll see that the horse-bow now stores almost twice the energy for the same effort.

Downside of this:
Short bows are snappy and less accurate - the horsebow even more than the "short" longbow, and the horsebow takes years to build instead of a few hours (Both starting from the seasoned wood.)

[Elfdart]

Dwarfes need axes so that they can fell the trees of those damned elves.

And cut said trees into timbers to prop up all the mines they dig.

And for butchering animals since dwarves aren't vegans. Ever try cutting the head off a chicken or a lamb with a hammer?

[Batman]

You can kill animals just as well with a hammer as you can do with an axe and the eventual turning the animal into food thing is likely going to be done by knives anyway. And while I seriously doubt that's in any way shape or form relevant hammers would be not incnosiderably useful in tendering meat.

[Zixinus]

Dwarves preferring axes in battle =/= dwarves knowing axes at all.

There is a big difference between knowing a tool and preferring it in war. Greeks knew bows (and Hercules even used one IIRC) but didn't use it much in warfare (preferring throwable spears IIRC). They simply viewed it as a weapon for hunting.

What weapons an army uses in warfare depends on the tactics, strategies and resources available of the army, not necessarily what the culture from which the army comes from knows as tools.

If the dwarves in the OP are craftsmen that create tools far and wide for a variety of clients (humans, elves even, other dwarves, etc) then they would have the luxury to equip their armies with whatever they think they need, not just what they have on hand.

Meaning that a dwarven warrior could easily have a choice between hammers, axes, swords or maces. The choice would most likely be influenced by what the warrior was trained with and knows (and if they have the intel, what enemy they might be fighting), rather than what they are familiar with as everyday tools.