Dwarves Don't Use Axes

[Sinewmire]

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.

He also points out the tool utility of the axe in... The Fifth Elephant, I think?

With an axe a dwarf can chop wood. With wood, a dwarf can build a fire. With fire, a dwarf can build a forge. With a forge, a dwarf can build simple tools. With simple tools a dwarf can build complex tools, and with complex tools a dwarf can do anything.

Paraphrased.

[jollyreaper]

So I read the link on the Vangarian Guard and see a reference to them in the culture link, a certain Finn band did a concept album. Check ye olde youtube and now i find the freakin' Capital One barbarians invading the club and singing about a mad Russian monk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdkBs0VCSX0

I love you, internet.

[Vendetta]

So I read the link on the Vangarian Guard and see a reference to them in the culture link, a certain Finn band did a concept album. Check ye olde youtube and now i find the freakin' Capital One barbarians invading the club and singing about a mad Russian monk.

Heh, I've seen them live. They're fun.

[Thanas]

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.

Also, cavalry. They were used to great effect against frankish knights.

[Elfdart]

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.

Last time I checked, the Danish War Axe was in fact an axe. Just because it was big doesn't mean it's no longer an axe.

Also, cavalry. They were used to great effect against frankish knights.

They took a serious toll on William's horses at Hastings, too.

[Elfdart]

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.

Cutting the head off cleanly in one stroke is not really doable with a hammer. There's a reason why pork, lamb and veal chops are popular.

[Spoonist]

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.

Last time I checked, the Danish War Axe was in fact an axe. Just because it was big doesn't mean it's no longer an axe.

Depending on how you use the terms. But by the modern definition it's a polearm because of its length.
Do you really think that sparths and bardiches are axes as well? If you do then you are at least consistent, but if you don't then you are simply using a double standard on the terms.

[Elfdart]

Depending on how you use the terms. But by the modern definition it's a polearm because of its length.
Do you really think that sparths and bardiches are axes as well? If you do then you are at least consistent, but if you don't then you are simply using a double standard on the terms.

Of course they're axes! What did you think they were, rolling pins?

[Lurks-no-More]

IIRC (it's been several years), the Dragonlance dwarves' weapons began as tools used for other purposes, explaining why they had so many hammers, axes and picks. Again, IIRC, they found the idea of weapons that were good only as weapons (like swords) offensive.

[Zixinus]

IIRC (it's been several years), the Dragonlance dwarves' weapons began as tools used for other purposes, explaining why they had so many hammers, axes and picks. Again, IIRC, they found the idea of weapons that were good only as weapons (like swords) offensive.

That's cultural bias, and not a helpful one. What may be good as a tool may not be the best as a weapon, even if we are talking about axes or hammers.

[Spoonist]

Depending on how you use the terms. But by the modern definition it's a polearm because of its length.
Do you really think that sparths and bardiches are axes as well? If you do then you are at least consistent, but if you don't then you are simply using a double standard on the terms.

Of course they're axes! What did you think they were, rolling pins?

Why the boring trolling attitude? If you want to try to flame then at least to do with flare.

What are you really trying to argue against? That danish axes, sparth, bardiche and halberds are not polearms? If so what is your definition of a polearm?
Or are you arguing that just because they are polearms doesn't mean they are not axes? If so I think that there is a misunderstanding here, you should note my original text which you responded to. "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." I thought the caveats 'hand', 'too long' and 'axe-head' in context would make any nitpicking redundant?

And why wouldn't you use the same category for them like most historians do today?
To properly understand their use one should look at other poleaxes or polearms.
Just like if you want to understand a scramaseax one should look at daggers or sword. (The connection being that the sparth uses some forging techniques previously used for scramaseax).

The huscarl battle-axe is categorized as poleaxe, poleaxes in turn is categorized as polearm. Consistently so if I look at my bookshelf.

Let's do some random googling, first hits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_weapon#Long_axes
category polearm
http://www.medievalwarfare.info/weapons.htm
category polearm

I really think there must be some misunderstanding for you to react in the way you do?

[Thanas]

Depending on how you use the terms. But by the modern definition it's a polearm because of its length.
Do you really think that sparths and bardiches are axes as well? If you do then you are at least consistent, but if you don't then you are simply using a double standard on the terms.

Of course they're axes! What did you think they were, rolling pins?

Why the boring trolling attitude? If you want to try to flame then at least to do with flare.

What are you really trying to argue against? That danish axes, sparth, bardiche and halberds are not polearms? If so what is your definition of a polearm?
Or are you arguing that just because they are polearms doesn't mean they are not axes? If so I think that there is a misunderstanding here, you should note my original text which you responded to. "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." I thought the caveats 'hand', 'too long' and 'axe-head' in context would make any nitpicking redundant?

And why wouldn't you use the same category for them like most historians do today?

I have only ever read them as battleaxes. I think you are the one nitpicking here. Note that the authority on the Byzantine Guard units, John Haldon, uses axes as well iirc.

They can very well be categorized as axes and in fact should be categorized as such because war-axes always were of the lengthy kind except for the throwing kind.

[The Yosemite Bear]

mine use explosives, oh and john henry approved hammers/wrenches....

[Zixinus]

Okay, let's move away from conventional weaponry.

What's stopping the dwarves from using poisons? Either in gas or in injected form?

Because the dilemma of trying to solve "hitting steel with steel" seems to require using that.

Tunnels may not suffer from the problems of using various poisonous gases. How technologically hard would it be to develop good gasmasks?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Okay, let's move away from conventional weaponry.

What's stopping the dwarves from using poisons? Either in gas or in injected form?

Because the dilemma of trying to solve "hitting steel with steel" seems to require using that.

Tunnels may not suffer from the problems of using various poisonous gases. How technologically hard would it be to develop good gasmasks?

Dwarves are often depicted as being very hardy creatures, in most games I can think of they get a constitution or stamina bonus to reflect this. Its also mentioned in Order of the Stick (set in the D & D world) that dwarves have two livers. So it may be that its difficult enough to effectively poison a dwarf that dwarves themselves don't think of it.

[Formless]

Then smoke out tunnelers instead. Having two livers won't protect you from suffocating.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Then smoke out tunnelers instead. Having two livers won't protect you from suffocating.

This is true, and it is something I could see dwarves doing. A war between two dwarf clans would be a particularly nasty thing, I think. All undermining, and smoke, collapsing tunnels, and desparate close-quarters fights in the deep dark. No axes here, no room for a good swing, axes are for surface work, chopping down trees and biggers. In the tunnels you want a good dagger, maybe a short sword.

[Batman]

Daggers or a short swords aren't going to do all that hot against the heavy armour dwarves are typically portrayed as wearing. They'd be better of with bludgeoning weapons like hammers or mauls. Yes, you still need room to swing them, but you need room to swing a sword too, and unlike the dagger or short sword you don't have to aim for gaps in the armour.

[Formless]

Guys, digging tunnels takes time and effort. Hacking into someone's own tunnels and mines requires him to either be inept at keeping out intruders, or digging your own tunnels. And have any of you ever been inside a mine or cave? They aren't exactly easy to maneuver in and they get hot, hot enough that wearing armor might just tire you the fuck out.

Attacking land holdings where the crops are being grown doesn't take as much time and effort, doesn't involve all the natural hazards of being underground, and is something the Mountain Kings can't deny to you by simply collapsing some cave or whatever. What about this is hard to understand? If you want to go to war with Dwarves, "conventional" warfare techniques above the surface of the earth are going to work just fine. Sapping the walls out from under a castle might be useful occasionally, but its not the only siege warfare technique that will work. Just starving out the defenders is a simple and proven method of ending sieges, and there are many more besides if that's taking too long.

I don't understand how something like "dwarves like deep ground mining" becomes tunnel vision on exotic concepts like underground warfare.







(PUN INTENDED )

[Thanas]

Daggers or a short swords aren't going to do all that hot against the heavy armour dwarves are typically portrayed as wearing. They'd be better of with bludgeoning weapons like hammers or mauls. Yes, you still need room to swing them, but you need room to swing a sword too, and unlike the dagger or short sword you don't have to aim for gaps in the armour.

It is however extremely unlikely you would dig tunnels while wearing armored. Not even the spanish did so.

[The Yosemite Bear]

just imagine dwarf fortress combined with the worst of WWI tunnel warfare. ok, whose going to think to piss in a cloth and cover their faces?

[Batman]

I was under the impression we were talking about warfare in preexisting tunnels?

[The Yosemite Bear]

mind you In polyhedron approved games, I did have a reputation for bringing rennisance tactics to normal AD&D games with my Dwarves, usually carring crossbows, picks, hammers, and well turning several cows and pigs into a big nasty hobgoblin/draconian killing attack. (mine under the enemy fortress, start burning the cows and pigs, and barrels of spoiled booze....

[Thanas]

I was under the impression we were talking about warfare in preexisting tunnels?

In pre-existing tunnels I think it more likely that warfare will degenerate into a lot of sulphur burning and mine placement.

[Formless]

And again, how the hell do you expect to get into an enemy's pre-dug tunnels? They are his pre-dug tunnels for crying out loud! They aren't public space, they are going to be under guard, particularly in wartime. I know I keep saying this, but its true. You have to dig your own to gain access (and that's only a good idea if the major entryways lead into the main castle or fortress, otherwise just besiege the fool and grab as much of his ore as you can), or he has to be so inept at keeping out intruders you have essentially won the siege already. This is true even if he starts with a natural cave, because the first thing he is going to do is find all entryways to the cave and either plug them up, ignore them as being too hazardous for any sane being to try using (such as an immediate fifty foot drop), or guard them possibly with fortifications. In short, the idea of vast subterranean underworlds that can be shared by dozens of polities at once isn't how real world caves and mines work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Moria is a fantasy in all sorts of ways besides being found in a fantasy universe.