Joe Commoner, and his BIG AXE!!!

[Fallen Seraph]

I also remember the story (was tested in Mythbusters) where it may have been Swedish or another Scandinavian village tried to build a wooden-cannon to defend the town... It then blew up killing most of the town's people, BUT atleast they simple villagers tried.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Well, most farm tools are pretty deadly, in the right circumstances. Of all that I can think of, though, I would say that a wood axe or cleaver would be my choice. Possibly a machete, but those weren't a big thing in Europe. Human flesh is much softer than wood, and, well, you know what cleavers are for. Granted, neither is intended for combat, but they're some of the few farm tools intended to hit something at speed. That, and they have a lot better reach than a knife (not that D&D cares about that).

At the bottom line, though, I would say that the primary reason why commoners aren't to be feared (relatively) isn't because they don't have access to good improvised weaponry - it's that they're commoners. Hunting or slaughtering animals is one thing, the art of war and battle is quite another. It would be quite interesting to see what would really happen to the peasantry in a fantasy world, where humans can quite often become the prey, rather than the predator.

 

[Revinor]

One Swedish king was too cheap to equip the army with pikemen, that meant that the Swedish infantry couldn't mount an effective offense. Lack of pikes also made the infantry very vulnerable to cavalry. The savings made from not buying pikes and armour were lost when the Polish cavalry annihalated the Swedes in Balthicum.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Hussar_by_Alexander_Orlowski.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Polish_winged_hussar_by_TBenda_.jpg

Pikes would not help THAT much against half-angels

Seriously, at this point there was no force in Europe which was able to stop Hussars charge, without some kind of terrain enforcements/traps. 5 meters long lances, heavy armor and special tactic when they were speeding up to charge in skirmish formation with large distance between the horses (so long distance fire was not effective) reforming into 'armed fist' just umpteen meters before the enemy troops. Plus the wings

Finally, Hussars got defeated by economy, not in battle.

 

[med stud]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Hussar_by_Alexander_Orlowski.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Polish_winged_hussar_by_TBenda_.jpg

Pikes would not help THAT much against half-angels

Seriously, at this point there was no force in Europe which was able to stop Hussars charge, without some kind of terrain enforcements/traps. 5 meters long lances, heavy armor and special tactic when they were speeding up to charge in skirmish formation with large distance between the horses (so long distance fire was not effective) reforming into 'armed fist' just umpteen meters before the enemy troops. Plus the wings

Finally, Hussars got defeated by economy, not in battle.

The Swedish cavalry under Gustavus Adolphus defeated the Polish cavalry in early 17th century. It was the first time another cavalry managed to defeat Polish cavalry. The Polish cavalry died with new military tactics and strategies. They had a long golden era but they didn't age well.

They were very impressive as long as they lasted, though.

 

[Revinor]

The Swedish cavalry under Gustavus Adolphus defeated the Polish cavalry in early 17th century. It was the first time another cavalry managed to defeat Polish cavalry. The Polish cavalry died with new military tactics and strategies. They had a long golden era but they didn't age well.

As far as I know, Hussars got defeated there exactly because the _firearms_, not opposing cavalry. They made a charge uphill, in soft sand against a firearm troops which employed a new tactic of multi-line salvo (all 3-4 lines firing at once at point blank range). Very bad tactics on the Polish side (they got too sure of themselves after not losing a battle for 130 years) resulted in retreat with heavy losses. After that, Hussars continued to win the battles against various enemies (with more favorable terrain conditions) for another 50 or so years.

Hussars have not really managed to get outdated because of technological advances - formation started to decline because of economical reasons before that. At some point (second half of XVII century), to try to do the cost-cutting, armor and training quality was compromised, resulting in worse performance at battlefield. In XVIII they became only represenative army and then finally dissolved.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Also (just thought of this) wouldn't most farmers have some experience with using an axe to kill things? How does your average medieval farmer kill his chickens, pigs, or cows? (I know you don't usually kill the cows, but humor me.) I don't know, I'm wondering what the usual method was. I would imagine an axe, that makes the most sense to me.

So, in that case, perhaps a commoner using their slaughtering axe or cleaver in battle would be far more appropriate than the 3.5 usual of a dagger or club.

Anyone else flash to Pakstherion's axe training? "don't just stand there. Do you think an enemy would stay still as you set up to hit them? Move girl!" .. and then she gashes open her own leg. the books were a fun mix of a D&D world and military experiances.

even in a 19th century slaughter house, a sledgehammer to the forehead was a typical end for a cow.

 

[Verys Arkon]

Doesn't the axe also give +1 damage? According the "PHB Lite" there are weapons that give +3 to hit ('accurate'), +2 to hit ('regular') and +1 to hit/+1 to damage ('inaccurate').

I think we'll find that's an error in the PHB Lite.

Not that there aren't going to be errors and omissions in the PHB Lite, but under Weapon Proficiency (p 23), the source I copied from just said +1 attack bonus, and nothing about a damage bonus as far as I can see.

If someone knows of additional information they can add to the Weapons section, pass it on at the PHB Lite thread and I'll add it to the next revision.

Thanks
Verys.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Regarding the "Bossa" issue my understanding (probably imperfect) is that it meant firearm/matchlock/hunting piece in a fairly interchangeable manner. This comes second hand via books on the 30 years war and I'm not a speaker of Danish so take with a grain of salt.

Scythes when used in battle were converted to something more like a naginata by remounting the blade parallel to a new straighter haft.

Cattle/pigs/other large livestock is generally killed with a spike and a heavy short-hafted hammer.

Picks and mattocks are very ugly as weapons. A solid pick/mattock with a 14-15 pound head picks up enormous angular momentum even if you aren't swinging hard. But don't underestimate the shovel. Even unsharpened a shovel's edge will make an ugly slice with force behind it. A shovel or entrenching tool with sharpened edges can be vicious.

Regarding the battleaxe-woodaxe dichotomy that is an artifact. Aside from the pole axes there really was no difference. The axe carried by Vikings or Franks or Saxons (other than Huscarls with their pole axes) were the very same axes used for daily chores. A lot of the impression is because of the difference between how modern woodaxes look and historic axes. Most all mass-produced axes are based on the American style woodaxe which didn't even exist until after the settlement of North America and came about due to differences in woodland growth between the two continents.

Also the thing about swords is that they were status symbols, it took a skilled craftsman trained in bladesmithing with a significant amount of high quality (read expensive) metal to make a sword. Where axes, spears, picks, shovels, etc. Could all be made primarily with cheap metal by any blacksmith and the only part that required high-quality material was the cutting edge itself.

 

[med stud]

Regarding the "Bossa" issue my understanding (probably imperfect) is that it meant firearm/matchlock/hunting piece in a fairly interchangeable manner. This comes second hand via books on the 30 years war and I'm not a speaker of Danish so take with a grain of salt.

"Bössa" is still a word in Swedish. You can call a M16 a "bössa" and you wouldn't be wrong (it would sound strange, though). That's what's so aggrevating when reading old Swedish first hand experiences from the 16th-17th century. You don't know what handguns they are talking about.

 

[MichaelK]

Because so many folks out there went around swinging daggers with two hands?

Okay, maybe you could, but it isn't adding to the weapon's effectiveness. Whether it can be used that way, and whether anyone would ever want to are not the same thing

I could see a frightened, unproficient user clutching a knife with two hands for steadiness.

Not really the same thing though.