[Deathblob]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Not that i really want to get into an argument about historicity, but historically an axe had an advantage in penetrating power, because it had a heavy head that came to an 'edge' (not actually that sharp in practice, but momentum helps) at the end of a shaft, so the Force per square inch was really high. On a solid hit it was much more likely to punch through armor than a swung sword was.

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly. Are you saying a longer shaft, and a heavier head, aid in penetration?

FWIW, swords aren't historically much of a slashing weapon either. Sure, if you could bring it to bear on an unarmored target it could slash just fine, but a knight in full armor in the late medieval/early renaissance was mostly immune to a swung sword. Which is why thrusting became the dominant attack mode with a sword, because against an armored foe it makes a much better piercing weapon. And thus developed a number of swords which were focused on using the tip as a weapon rather than the blade per se. Note that a sword has a much smaller area of contact if it strikes with the tip rather than the blade, and since it doesn't get much of a momentum bonus from a swing (because its not end-weighted), its just a very poorly designed weapon for swinging.

(Similarly, the mace was more effective as a swung weapon against a well-armored foe than a sword was).

But lets be honest, the dominant weapon during the heaviest armored periods was the pike, and well-drilled battalions of pikemen dominated the wars in europe.

Swords as a swung weapon (eg, the cutlass) became more popular again as armor got lighter with the growing dominance of gunpowder.

Wow that's almost tldr.

But I think what you are saying here is that for better penetration, thrusting is better than swinging. And pikemen are dominant because their weapons have really long shafts. Is that right?