Real-World Weapons: The Axe and Mace

Difficulties

I must admit, I am significantly less familiar with the short unbalanced weapons than I am with, say, the sword and spear. Additionally, there are no period texts detailing the use of the mace or the short axe. Dagger, sword, spear, poleaxe, yes - axe and mace, no. So much of what we can say about these weapons is speculative.

What we can do is look at surviving specimens and accurate reproductions to get a sense of what the weapons were like, physically.

Descriptions

A standard European mace. This is likely a little out-of-period for me, likely c. 1450-1500, but is substantially similar to earlier models. Image courtesy of Nazanian and Wikimedia Commons.

Replica battleaxe, based on an archeological find in Norway. Reasonably typical of battleaxes in general. Photo from myArmoury.com, axe by Arms & Armour.

First off, these weapons are shorter than I had previously thought - one handed maces don't seem to vary much from the 24" mark. They're also lighter than I had thought - rarely more than 3 lbs, and often only 2 lbs - sometimes less. The same goes for axes, although they tend to be a little smaller and lighter still!

The balance point ranges from the middle of the weapon to a little past the middle (i.e. closer to the head). It looks like the balance point would be further, but there you are.

This all contributes to making maces and axes significantly handier in combat than you might expect.

Mace - Description

The difference between a mace and a club is subtle. To my mind, the defining features of the mace are two-fold: all-metal construction, and the use of flanges or knobs on the head.

Length: 20-30"
Weight: 2lb
Balance point: 2/3 up from butt end.

Mace Variation - Morning Star

The morning star is simply a mace with spikes instead of knobs or flanges, especially if there is one larger spike at the very top for thrusting.

Axe Description

Military axes had very small, thin, light heads compared to woodcutting axes or hatchets. The head would also often have a cut-out between the blade and haft, allowing for the axe to be used for hooking, and reducing weight while maximizing cutting area.

Length:18"-30"
Weight: 1-2lb

Axe Variation - Military Pick / Warhammer

A military pick or warhammer are basically just piercing or bludgeoning versions of the axe. Some axes even incorporate a pick on their back end, and most warhammers have a hammer side and a pick side. Otherwise, they are very similar to an axe. 

Misconceptions

It seems to be a common misconception that maces and axes were big, heavy things that dealt damage through their weight and brute force. The reality is that they were usually smaller and lighter than swords, and relied as much on the speed of the swing as on their unbalanced weight distribution.

Offence

Archaeological evidence shows that people killed by axe blows were typically struck from above, leading me to believe that fendente (i.e. overhead strikes) were more typically used with these weapons than mezzane (strikes parallel with the ground). Logically, this makes sense - gravity would be pulling the heavy head of the weapon down, lending more force to the blow for free.

The other common injury with axes seen is leg injuries. This is likely because axes were used with shields - two fighters with shields apparently find opportunities to hook the axe under the opponent's shield. Later treatises of the sword don't describe leg strikes - they focus on attacks to the head, neck, and weapon arm.

Defence

A dagger play that might be usable with an axe. From the Pissani-Dossi MS of Fiore Dei Liberi's manual.

Two more dagger plays that might work with an axe or mace. From the Paris Manuscript by Fiore Dei Liberi.

If using an axe or mace with your other hand empty, you could possibly do some dagger/baton defences with the shaft. The problem immediately apparent in adapting these plays is that axes - while they can thrust - are not suited for the devastating thrusts to the vitals that daggers are capable of.

It may be possible to do some of the sword defences, but the short shaft and lack of guard would limit your options there. While handier than you'd think, an axe or mace is not going to be a great option for your only defensive weapon.

Except in urgent situations, typically an axe or mace would be used with a shield. This makes up for the lack of agility compared with a sword - at least compared to a sword without a shield.

Weapon Types, or Why Exhaustive Weapons Charts Are Unnecessary

A comment by JDJarvis brought to mind that I've never talked about why I use the weapons I use on my charts and examples. There are two main reasons.

Firstly, I'm most interested in the 14th century and early 15th century. Call it 1325-1425. The weapons I list are the most common weapons of that era - the dagger, the arming sword, the longsword, the mace, the axe, the spear, and the poleaxe.

Secondly, I intended this list to be broadly applicable, despite its brevity. I believe the user of the system should be able to easily extrapolate new weapons, as with these few weapons, I've covered all the archetypes of melee weapons:

• small (dagger)
• less than 18" or so in size
• balanced one-handed (arming sword)
• balance point within 4" of hand
• nimble, defensive
• unbalanced one-handed (mace, axe)
• balance point around middle of weapon or further from grip
• good against armour
• less nimble, less defensive
• balanced two-handed (longsword, spear)
• balance point near the hands at one end OR
• balance point near middle of weapon
• strong offense and defense
• unbalanced two-handed (poleaxe)
• balance point closer to "head" of weapon
• good against armour
• strong offense and defense

As far as I know, all melee weapons can be slotted into one of these categories. JDJarvis asked about shortswords (presumably of the Roman variety), warhammers, and cutlasses.

I would put the Roman shortsword into the "small" category (some might argue for it being in the "balanced one-handed" category, but that category implies more defensiveness than a shortsword provides), the warhammer clearly is unbalanced one-handed, and the cutlass clearly balanced one-handed.

Halberd? Unbalanced two-handed. Tomahawk? Unbalanced one-handed. Club? Unbalanced one-handed. Rapier? Balanced one-handed. Scimitar? Balanced one-handed. Falchion? Balanced one-handed.

When I see the weapons lists in many RPGs, lists that often take up whole pages, I shake my head. Do we really need to mechanically differentiate between a cutlass, a scimitar, a falchion, and an arming sword? Aren't they all pretty much bladed weapons, about 3' long, with a balance point about 4" from the grip? Isn't just one example sufficient? I feel the huge charts of weapons clutter up the book, and confuse new players.

Perhaps a compromise in a finished product would be to list the few weapons I have, briefly explain the rationale behind the categories, and provide a simple (but fairly exhaustive) list in an appendix of how all other medieval(ish) weapons fit into the system.

Real-World Weapons - The Dagger

I'm starting a new series on Real-World Weapons - i.e. the weapons we know and love from D&D in a real-world context. I hope that this series will illuminate the use of these weapons to the reader, enabling players to employ more varied, effective, and realistic tactics in battle, and helping DMs deliver vivid fight scenes that have the ring of truth to them. 

I'm starting this series off with a weapon that doesn't get a lot of love (outside of Magic User circles) - the dagger. I'll be continuing on with the short, unbalanced weapons (axes and maces), then the swords (arming and long), and eventually the polearms (spear and poleaxe). I may do more later on, but most other weapons are pretty similar to one of these - enough that they can probably be treated the same mechanically.

Description

The medieval dagger of the period was about the size of a really big carving knife - the blade would be about 12"-18" long, with an extremely stiff blade. It's primary purpose was piercing, but it would typically have at least one sharp or semi-sharp edge.

Rondel Dagger c. 1350 found in the Thames River, London - image from Wikimedia Commons, courtesy of Dana Williams

Offense

Daggers typically deal low damage in RPGs, to distinguish them from the bigger weapons. I would posit that the 0e system of d6 across the board is not that far off. All Medieval weapons were more than capable of killing a normal, unarmoured man outright in a single blow, and this is how Oe works.

The 12" blade of a dagger can do some really serious damage to the human body. A blow to the head will pierce the brain, likely instantly killing the victim. Neck shots will sever arteries, cut the windpipe, or damage the spinal cord. Blows to the trunk are typically less useful, as the ribcage is pretty tough, but a blow that comes down through the collarbone or between two ribs could easily puncture a lung. Stabs to the abdomen can pierce the liver, kidneys, or other vital organs, leading to rapid death from internal bleeding.

That said, many of the blows from a dagger would be to the hands and arms, where they would be painful and dangerous in the long run (i.e. slow bleeding and infections), they likely wouldn't put you out of the fight. Glancing blows will slice the victim up, but again, likely not enough to put the person out of the fight.

This is my justification for giving the dagger 2d6-TL (2d6 Take Lowest) - enough that it can be very dangerous, but blows from it typically will not kill you.

Usage Vs. Armour

The Medieval dagger was also a valid tool against an armoured opponent. Its stiff blade and sharp point made it ideal for forcing through chain mail, and it can still be used in a grapple once other weapons have been abandoned.

In a close fight between armoured opponents with daggers, each will be seeking a weak point to drive it in, and there are a few choice targets. Depending on the helmet, there may be some great targets on the head.

If the helm is unvisored, like the popular kettlehelm or early bascinets, the face has only thin bone between blade and brain, and is an excellent target.

If the helm is visored, like the popular hounskull bascinet, it may be possible to open the visor and attack the face.

Lastly, if the helm is one solid piece, like a greathelm, the eyeslits can be a target. This is probably most practical if the victim is pinned on the ground, limiting their head mobility, as the eyeslit is a very small target, and they often had flanges to direct thrusts away from them.

After head strikes, the neck is another good target. In-period, the neck was often defended by a plate gorget (which would be more or less impermeable), with or without an aventail of mail around it. In a very close grapple, the attacker might be able to lift the back of the aventail, and get his dagger in the back of the neck, severing the spine or major arteries, or plunging the blade down in the hopes of hitting the heart or lung.

Barring any of those options, the armpits were typically only armoured with chain, which a dagger could be forced through.

Defense

Plays of sword and dagger, from the Getty MS Ludwig XV 13, by the Master Fiore Dei Liberi c. 1410.

While the dagger is rather small, it is not useless for defending yourself - anything that you can directly control an enemy weapon with is better than nothing!  In fact, you can make most of the dagger defenses with any kind of similarly-shaped object - a stick, for example.

I've rated the dagger's defensiveness as low, because it is so small it's easy to screw up your defense, and it can be overborne by powerful weapons like the poleaxe.

A defender with a dagger facing someone with a superior weapon would be trying to do a few things, typically.

Controlling the opponent's weapon is always the first priority, as killing them is little good to you if they kill you at the same time. The dagger doesn't offer the leverage of a sword, or the reach to strike from the bind (i.e. weapons crossed). Therefore the person with the dagger will likely try to transfer control of the opponent's weapon from the dagger to their offhand after parrying an attack.

From there, they can seek a lock (like a key or armbar), a disarm (most viable against a one-handed weapon), probably all combined with an attempt to maneuver in beside or behind the opponent for an opportunity for one of the lethal strikes I described above.

Confined Spaces

Edit: updated Longsword length to be 4', a better estimate than 3.5'.

Previously, I'd talked about reach in the abstract, without considering the space you're in. How do we deal with the restrictions imposed on fighting by a confined space? I've touched on this issue here before, in my post Dungeoneering Tools: The Spear, but I'd like to develop something a bit more general, as the subject of confined spaces obviously affects more than just the spear.

Confined Spaces

What constitutes a confined space is going to vary based on what kind of weapon you're used. A space that is "confined" for a spear could be spacious for a dagger. There are also some weapons that have options for how to fight with them - something like a longsword can be held with one or two hands on the hilt, or with one hand on the hilt and one hand on the blade (called "halfsword"). A spear can be gripped in thirds (the usual way for single combat) or with one or two hands down at the butt (for formation combat).

See below for a detailed and simplified chart of how much space different weapons need to be used effectively.

Effects of Confined Spaces

If you don't have enough space (in any dimension) for using your weapon properly, you don't get any Defense or Attack bonus for your weapon. Also, any rolls above 10 on your d20 attack roll count as a 10.

If the space is too small to wield the weapon at all (e.g. trying to use a 7' spear in a 6'x6' closet), obviously you can't use it at all.


Weapon Reach

The reach of a weapon is equal to: the length of the weapon past the hand + the length of the arm + the length of one step + a little bit for body positioning. Anything within the reach of the weapon is a potential target.

Footwork

In addition to the length of the weapon, there's also the footwork required for using it effectively. This is fairly consistent across weapons, and can probably be generalized to about one step per round in any direction.

Weapon Usage Style

There's also the matter of usage style. Spear, longsword, and poleaxe immediately occur as having a couple of options for how to use them.

Spears, poleaxes, and longswords can be held in thirds (i.e. each hand 1/3 from the respective end) or at the butt (i.e. both hands down near the end). Holding a spear by the butt gives it great reach, but limits its offensive and defensive power. Holding a spear in thirds gives its attacks and parries great power, and opens up the possibility of using the spear as a lever when grappling (e.g. a missed thrust to the head turns into an attempt to knock the person down by hooking the spear around behind their head and pulling them down).

Poleaxes and longswords can be swung when held at the butt, which for poleaxes obviously needs a great deal of room.

Space Requirements

Most weapons are going to need a radius of their reach around them, and probably space above them (approximately weapon length + shoulder height) above them.

Let's categorize weapons:

Detailed table:

Weapon	Length (effective)	Max Reach (length + arm + step + lean)	Min width (length x 2 + step x 2 OR step x 2 for thrusting-only weapons)	Min Height (6' wielder) (length+shoulder height)
Dagger	1	8	8	6
Axe/Mace	2	9	10	7
Arming Sword	3	10	12	8
Long Sword	4	11	14	9
Long Sword (halfsword)	4 (1)	8	8	7
Spear (thirds)	7 (3)	10	12-16	8-11
Spear (butt)	7 (5)	12	6	6
Poleaxe	6 (2-4)	9-11	14	9

And, an extremely simplified version, because that's a lot of fiddly numbers:

Weapon	Length (effective)	Max Reach	Min width	Min Height
Dagger	1	S	S	S
Axe/Mace	2	S	S	M
Arming Sword	3	M	M	M
Long Sword	4	M	M	M
Long Sword (halfsword)	4 (1)	S	S	S
Spear (thirds)	7 (3)	M	L	L
Spear (butt)	7 (5)	L	S	S
Poleaxe	6 (2-4)	M	L	L

For this table, S / M / L:
Reach: 8' / 10' / 12'
Width: 8' / 12' / 16'
Height: 6' / 8' / 10'

Passing Thought: Boolean Encumbrance

It's not news to anyone that most encumbrance systems are too complicated to get much use. Numerous simplifications have been proposed: weight by stone, number of line items, body locations...

Frankly, they're all still a little much for me, so here's what I propose - encumbrance as a simple True/False state.

A number of simple things would make you encumbered:

• Backpack with stuff in it
• Metal Armour
• Exception: Fighters wear chain without penalty, and high Con lets you wear one level higher (i.e. fighter with high con wears plate without penalty)
• Carrying something awkward (chest, five spears, etc.)

The effects would be simple:

• Can't run (jogging only)
• Fight/cast/burgle as one level lower
• Overland movement 2/3 normal
• Double fatigue (if using Spells and Steel)

 

Reach and the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms

Continued from the last two posts, and in response to this post.

Fighting Distances

Two people in a sword fight spend most of the fight about 10' apart - the distance of one step plus an outstretched arm with a sword in it. They only move in to make a blow.

Standing any closer than that is suicide, as you won't have time to parry an incoming blow (and will be forced to try to dodge, likely throwing yourself off balance and getting killed by the continuation of the attack). I talked yesterday about how important *not dodging* is.

Managing Distance

"But on the other hand, are we assuming that combatants are too stupid to try to get inside an opponent's reach? Too stupid to knock the spear aside with their shield? It balances out."

It would seem so, but it doesn't, and here's why.

For the person with the longer reach, it's easy to maintain a longer distance. Any time the opponent gets close, you circle away from them (i.e. step sideways and back). At no point is the long-reach person threatened in this series of actions - they are still too far away to be hit.

Additionally, at any point, the person with the reach advantage can simply step forward and attempt a blow in relative safety- they can strike while they are still out of reach of their opponent's weapon.

However, for the person with the shorter reach, in order to attempt a blow, they have to achieve a tactical advantage which will let them simultaneously catch the other person off balance enough that they can't circle away, control the longer weapon as they close (so they don't die), *and only then* can they attempt a blow. Much, much more difficult.

It's certainly not impossible, but hopefully that illustrates why it doesn't "balance out".

This is also a good argument for buffing spears back up to their full length, by the way.

Shields, Axes, and the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms

Continued from yesterday's post, and in response to this post.

Shields - Not For Blocking

"Also, you'd certainly be better off focusing on dodging an ax than trying to block it with a shield that's going to be hacked to bits."

This seems to be based on a misconception of what a shield is used for. Yes, in a shield wall, you use a shield for blocking.

But in a one-on-one fight, the shield is used to defend you in the same way a weapon is used - by controlling and guiding the opponent's weapon, not by simply "blocking" it. If you're holding your shield out and taking the full brunt of an axe blow with it, you're doing it wrong.

Dodging - A Good Way To Get Yourself Killed

"focusing on dodging"

Dodging is a very small part of combat, and is really more of a last-ditch defense or a way of sweetening a parry than something to be relied on. You always want to be seeking to control the other person's weapon, and you can't do that by dodging. You need to be making contact - either with your weapon or your shield, or by grabbing their hand/arm.

There's a rule of fighting - "Never be uncrossed in distance." That means don't *ever* let your opponent so close they could hit you with just a hand motion, unless you have control of their weapon.

Hollywood depictions of combat are terrible for this - the two fighters stand sword toe-to-toe and slug it out, constantly crossing and uncrossing their swords while they're close enough to punch each other. Well, in real life, both of them would end up dead doing that - being uncrossed in distance tends to lead to double kills.

Furthermore, "dodging" implies (to me, anyway) contorting your body in some way to get out of the way, something you should ideally not be doing, as it breaks your structure and makes you vulnerable. It's far better to use your weapon for defense than to rely on dodging.

But this is getting into the territory I'm going to cover tomorrow, which is Reach, and why more of it is better.

Mechanical Problems

"That's a minor in-game justification, but since the goal is something minimalist that's in between the traditional Weapon vs. AC system and "all weapons are the same", it seems reasonable."

I respect the goal, but I think that any mechanic that encourages players to have their characters behave irrationally is broken.

You would most certainly be better off facing someone with an axe with a sword and shield than with just a sword. I think that really should be obvious.

I can see, if you want to give axes something special, maybe you could have them just negate the shield bonus (i.e. +1 vs. shield). There's no real-world justification for that, but it fits with the system you're building, and doesn't encourage bizarre character behaviour (i.e. "The orc has an axe? I quickly drop my shield and charge!).

A better approach might be something like, "unbalanced weapons count for twice their length", where unbalanced means any weapon with most of the weight at the end - mostly the mace and axe.

This would serve to model unbalanced weapons main function - dealing with armour.

Spears, Weapon Mechanics, and the Nine and Thirty Kingdoms

In response to this post.

Talysman very kindly wrote a lengthy and detailed reply to my comments on his search for a middle-ground between a cumbersome weapon vs. armour table and no weapon differentiation. I was going to comment on his response, but I got a little carried away, so I'm putting it here. Quotations are from Talysman, unless otherwise noted.

The Goal

 As he so often does, Talysman perfectly encapsulates one of the central problems of designing a combat system (and I quote):

1. Weapons seem different,
2. Each is good at different times,
3. There are hardly any rules specifically implementing 1 and 2, and
4. They're easy to remember.

That's sort of the holy grail, and a particular bugaboo of mine, so I'm always delighted to see other people chipping away at this problem. Now, the spear became sort of a central issue to the discussion, and I think it merits discussing the spear a little more in depth.

The Problems

Now, there's a few problems I see with Talysman's approach, some logical, some verisimilitous, and some mechanical.

• Pole Weapons Nerfed
• Shields Can Hurt Your Defense
• Longer Reach Not Always Advantageous

I'm going to address these in a series of posts, starting with the first - nerfing the spear.

King of Weapons

There's a couple of reasons why the spear was the most popular weapon right up through the early gunpowder era - one is that it's cheap, and the other is that it is really, really good. Like, really good. There's a reason the spear is known as "The King of Weapons", and it's not because it wears a crown.

Now, for dungeoneering, the spear is essentially useless unless you're forming a mini shield wall. So there's good reason why everyone doesn't just use spears all the time. I talked about that here before.

But in one-on-one combat in an open space, the spear is peerless.

Spears - This One Is Supreme

"Tom Hudson said almost the exact opposite on a previous post about this. "poleaxe = good against plate, but spear = not so much"."

With respect to Tom Hudson, he's wrong. I would point to the Italian Master Fiore dei Liberi's opinion on the subject, from the end of his section on the spear in his 1400-ish combat manual:

And here ends the art of the spear, / With harness and without, this one is supreme.

What he's saying is that the spear is awesome, whether or not your opponent is wearing plate.

Fiore also specifically depicted plate armour in the illustrations for the spear section in the Getty MS, which he only does for the halfsword (i.e. using a sword like a spear to defeat armour, with one hand on the blade), the poleaxe (essentially a spear with a hammer on it), and the spear (noticing a spear-theme here?):
Spears and Plate Mail, c. 1400

So, no offense to Tom Hudson, but I'll defer to a man who literally lived by the sword and was one of the great masters of the art of combat.

Spears - Massive Force, Tiny Point

"And my gut instinct is: a spear is a knife on a stick. Stabbing/slashing weapons don't have increased force if attached to a longer shaft; they just have a longer reach. It's the hacking/bashing weapons that have increased force."

The problem with gut instincts is that they're so often wrong.

A spear delivers a great deal more force than a dagger, as you can put both arms on it and thus get much more of your body weight behind the blow as well as double the arm strength. I've worked with swords and spears doing pell drills (i.e. hitting a wooden target), and I can definitively say that a spear packs many times more wallop than a single-handed thrust.

All of this force is concentrated into the point of the weapon, and that point can do some serious damage.