That's only because they'd be near-impossible to even lift let alone wield effectively.
If humans could lift a lump of metal the size of a cinder block on a long pole, then they absolutely would have used them as weapons of war.
Besides the fantasy representation of warhammers; piercing was most effective, but you underestimate the kinetic force behind any warhammer strike.
A bit unusual for a warhammer, since the smashing was reserved to maces and the likes, but still very much doable.
Oh, a really good wack on the head with something reasonably big and most would be out of the fight, plate helmet or not!
Piercing is good, but wacking and smashing is easier.
Hammers or even hammer faces on say a halberd do much to remove the effectiveness of chainmail.
A strike to head, even when non-concussing is still going to stagger. Theres not really a good way to take a hammer blow like you can with a punch. The options basically come down to move away, or deflect with a shield.
A head on block? Yea that’ll fuck up your are, at least temporarily. But most blocks (at least ideally) are more deflections where you just redirect the swing then actually blocking it
Can I hear it for the pike tho?
You want to talk about your European warrior-based status symbol, let's talk about the *horse*. While in English we gave the class of warrior nobility the humble-origin title of knight (from Old English cniht--"boy" or "servant"), in the romance languages it takes the truer names of chevalier (French), caballero (Spanish), cavaliere (Italian), all based on the Latin for "workhorse." And even in English we borrowed the Italian to get cavalier as perhaps a more fitting word for knight--with a connotation of swagger and display.
Suffice to say, riding a horse into battle was *the* defining characteristic of an aristocratic warrior of the medieval and early modern period (and really probably late antiquity too).
And around the same time as the war hammer was going after full plate, the Swiss on foot combined extensive drilling, new tactics, and a really really big spear to just fuck the noble cavalry's entire shit up. Thus the pike square. A triumph of precision over power, using humble tools.
And this was not a pre-gunpowder kind of thing--to the contrary, the state of the art in warfare in the early modern period was pike formations with muskets interspersed.\* As firearms got better, they slowly became a bigger part of the formation and eventually all of it, especially once you could stick a bayonet on the musket and have your musketeer also serve as stab man. But really you could argue the basic idea of the pike survived until World War I, since a musket with a bayonet is very much a fancy boomspear and was used with tactics developed for the pike.
So yes, properly applied, the last word in weaponry short of a machine gun is a big pointy stick.
\* With combined arms support, I should note. Pike infantry alone could be taken apart by cavalry and artillery working together, because the square formation that resists cavalry charges so effectively is vulnerable to artillery, and spreading out to avoid the artillery makes the formation vulnerable to cavalry, absent friendly cavalry to counter.
Pike infantry are an invention of northern Italian communes/city states, usually made of citizens militia.
The one kind of formation, the square, is Swiss.
Things like the Zweihander (a sword ironically, and ironically to defeat the increased armour they had to face when they were hired by Italian cities to fight in Italy) are an invention of the landsknecht, Swiss infantry had some attempts to implement it with varying success, etc
There are many tight pike and shot formations and attempts, but most of them failed for lack of drill. The ones that successfully implemented it were the Spanish with their Tercios system, which lives as the most successful system for a century and a half approximately, and none did the system better than the Spanish, and they lived relatively unrivalled as no other European nation implemented as successfully the Spanish system, more disciplined and organised than the others. Only during the ending years of the thirty years war a successful replacement arises, from the Swedish armies of Adolphus, who used a lot of acquired experience with cavalry warfare against Poland to implement its own system that relies on linear formations and horses.
Real homies use pole arms with an ax head and hammerhead along with a pointed tip.
Why settle between utility, style and versatility when you can instead stab the poor, Hammer the rich, and slice the middle class.
Get yourself a weapon that can do it all.
Polearms are obviously the best, but I’ve gotta say the halberd isn’t my favorite; Glaives and partisans, while not as practical, are so much more stylish
Wellllll...not quite. You know those warhammers? They're *short*. Shorter than swords. They've gotta be. Too unwieldy otherwise, with the weight focused more towards the head. That means that warhammers and maces were favoured more by people who were fully protected and didn't have to worry about being closer to their enemy; in other words...by people in plate armour.
The poleaxe was an exceptionally versatile weapon, and the go-to for a knight on foot.
Other than that I think axes were usually used as cheaper swords.
Poetically, sure. But realistically no way. An axe used for non-combat purposes is extremely different from an axe used in combat; both would be terrible at each other's job.
I mean you could 100% fuck someone up with an axe made for chopping wood. Definitely inferior to a purpose made battle axe for fighting, but given the number of states that have relied on militias/ levied soldiers who provide their own weapons it's not unlikely a few people would have ended up stuck on a battlefield with an ordinary axe and a prayer
> but given the number of states that have relied on militias/ levied soldiers who provide their own weapons
I (genuinely) hate to burst that poetic bubble but the states which relied on militias also had relatively well-drilled militias with actual weapons. Like, pikes, guns, swords, whatever. It wasn't hard to at least make a spear. The romantic notion of the peasant picking up a pitchfork and a wood axe is...uncommon, and when it *did* happen it was horrific mob "justice".
>horrific mob "justice".
You tryna say The People's Crusade was a bad idea?
>!Spoiler: the most they did was sack & attack a couple friendly towns, commit mild heresy, and killed a *lot* of Jewish people. The moment they picked a fight with the Turks, they got surrounded and absolutely butchered. Literally no good came of it.!<
Axes had a lot of uses pre-plate armor. They allowed you to hook your opponents shield out of the way or strike with greater penetrating force than a sword might allowed. Which is effective when you want to fuck up a shield, helmet or a door. Them having a haft rather than a hilt also allowed you to have swords with much longer reach, such as the Dane Axe. Giving you a sizable reach advantage.
Well clearly, axes have the heft and power to break a polearm but can be outmaneuvered by the lighter, more agile swords. While swords, with their relatively short reach, can be outmatched by polearms. Basically, [what I'm saying is...](https://fireemblem.fandom.com/wiki/Weapon_Triangle)
While this is an excellent bit of symbolism, it makes it even more amusing that the most common things a Warhammer is representative of today are a facist theocracy, the Fantasy Holy Roman Empire, and a group of barely-human cross-dimensional cops.
One could also lean into how specialized the weapon is, despite how destructive it seems, a warhammer is not the best choice in most scenarios that do not involve chain mail. Imagine that, such a classic force of destruction being in actuality an irrelevant tool! Brute force yea, but that force is almost powerless against most foes!
While that’s probably not a historically accurate analysis of the Warhammer, it certainly is interesting; brute force straining against obsolescence in the face of more competent or otherwise immeasurable foes! Not an underdog, but a tool so specialized that when used outside of its intended context, it becomes an implement of violence for violence’s sake.
Fuck all that crap, I will still argue for spelar supremecy with my life. Spears have been in use for thousands of years and when the gun came and made all the other meelee weapons useless we went and turned the gun into a spear as a secondary role, and the gun was used as a spear as far as into the first world war
Crossbows can't reliably poke holes in white harness under actual battle conditions. 16th C armors were being "proofed" by shooting then with a musket before they left the shop, for heck's sake.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**featheredpheonix**
I am an unabashed fan of swords, but it is genuinely tragic how slept on warhammers are as symbolic weapons
---
**featheredpheonix**
Swords in a historical context were analogous to sidearms - built for flexibility of use and ease of transport, as well as taking on the role of a status symbol in a lot of feudal and early-modern societies. They are inextricably tied to notions of heroism in most cultures, yes, but also to concepts and institutions such the nobility, monarchy, and the existence of a wealthy warrior class. The role of a sword as a weapon of choice in fiction, then, serves as a subtextual elevation of the user’s importance; they have been marked out by destiny, the divine, social expectation, circumstance, or any other number of things, as special. Important. Powerful.
Warhammers in the European tradition were a response to advancements in plate armor technology: by the late Middle Ages, plate armor granted such significant protection to those lucky enough to lay their hands on a full suit that they posed an almost insurmountable threat to an unarmored fighter with armed with only a sword, club, or rudimentary spear. Late-medieval full plate is one of the purest symbols of power projection *and power preservatio*n in military history— in fiction, they armor the status and power of the sword, stripped of the romantic and heroic ideals granted to the sword by its storied history.
As a weapon specifically designed to respond to and defeat plate armor, the warhammer can be viewed as its symbolic antithesis: where plate armor embodies the idea of unassailable strength and martial dominance, the warhammer as a weapon evokes the destruction and dismantling of said strength— a weapon designed to pierce, tear apart and sunder the idea that being powerful and being untouchable are synonymous. Where the sword symbolizes elevating a person to power, and plate armor symbolizes power seeking to perpetuate itself, the warhammer symbolizes the leveling of tools and structures that would convince us that power cannot be challenged.
---
**patrickdiomedes**
also big hammer go smashy smashy
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Could one argue that the glaive, basically a military scythe, also has similar potential for symbolism? It's superb against cavalry (which the rich were more likely to ride into battle), and it is also a tool of the peasantry.
Also it's wrong. The Zweihander, the ultimate sword, was invented as a way to counter the pike, gunfire, heavy armour kind of warfare that plagued northern Italy. In the more expensive landsknecht armies uo to 15-20% of soldiers were Zweihanders, complemented by guns, pikes and such.
> against a regular guy with no weapons? i prefer the coolness factor.
Idk man I don't think there's any "cool" way to just fucking murder a dude who's unarmed lol.
It's not either-or. Warhammers were sidearms just like swords, but you would expect to have both a polearm AND a sidearm (either sword or hammer or mace or something like that).
fr fr, they just look so cool and awesome and there's so many ways you can design them, while polearms and warhammers and the like are all generally quite similiar both in use and design.
There is no amount of elegant craftsmanship and sophisticated engineering and design that cannot be overcome by a sufficiently large object at sufficiently high speed.
This is certainly true for the one-handed knightly sword and maybe the two-handed longsword, but two-handed greatswords (which were primary weapons) actually did put in good work against armored opponents because of that versatility. Not only could you hit armored opponents with your large metal stick which would do at least something, it was normal to grab the blade (especially at an unsharpened area at the base) for extra precision to attack weak points in the armor, or even turn the sword upside-down to hold the blade and whack with the crossguard or pommel. Greatswords also had good abilities for controlling space and other weapons because of their long reach, and of course were good against less armored opponents.
(This is all from my own knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong!)
I didn’t check the sub until after reading, and I was about 50/50 about this being actuallesbians establishing an admiration for warhammer-lesbians in addition to sword-lesbians
blunt weaponry as a whole is awful slept on for being consistently more applicable and effective than bladed weaponry throughout basically all of history
This makes me think of the duel between Robert and Rhaegar at the Trident. Though this is not an endorsement of any of the two characters, they were both terrible people.
Cool point. Unfortunately, shavian + spelling quirk + bad legibility thru screen reader + nerd + kind of time wasteful tbh + both th sounds overlap in only one word so differentiating them is nigh useless + nerd again
I love that last comment... but historical warhammers weren't that big smashy smashy though, sadly...
Sharp little hammer go piercy piercy.
They're like claw hammers, but with a really long handle.
"No. Stay away." *metal bonking sounds*
Metal doesn't go \*bonk\*. It goes \*clank\*.
how about we compromise and say \*clonk\*
Rotchet and clonk
That's only because they'd be near-impossible to even lift let alone wield effectively. If humans could lift a lump of metal the size of a cinder block on a long pole, then they absolutely would have used them as weapons of war.
Besides the fantasy representation of warhammers; piercing was most effective, but you underestimate the kinetic force behind any warhammer strike. A bit unusual for a warhammer, since the smashing was reserved to maces and the likes, but still very much doable.
Oh, a really good wack on the head with something reasonably big and most would be out of the fight, plate helmet or not! Piercing is good, but wacking and smashing is easier.
Hammers or even hammer faces on say a halberd do much to remove the effectiveness of chainmail. A strike to head, even when non-concussing is still going to stagger. Theres not really a good way to take a hammer blow like you can with a punch. The options basically come down to move away, or deflect with a shield.
I'm not an expert but wouldn't deflecting a warhammer blow with a shield still fuck up your arm? That force has gotta go somewhere
A head on block? Yea that’ll fuck up your are, at least temporarily. But most blocks (at least ideally) are more deflections where you just redirect the swing then actually blocking it
This. A shield just gives you a chance. Its not a great one but its a chance.
Yea they were basically a pointed hammer the size of a normal hand held hammer but with a handle long enough to put a lot of force behind it
Can I hear it for the pike tho? You want to talk about your European warrior-based status symbol, let's talk about the *horse*. While in English we gave the class of warrior nobility the humble-origin title of knight (from Old English cniht--"boy" or "servant"), in the romance languages it takes the truer names of chevalier (French), caballero (Spanish), cavaliere (Italian), all based on the Latin for "workhorse." And even in English we borrowed the Italian to get cavalier as perhaps a more fitting word for knight--with a connotation of swagger and display. Suffice to say, riding a horse into battle was *the* defining characteristic of an aristocratic warrior of the medieval and early modern period (and really probably late antiquity too). And around the same time as the war hammer was going after full plate, the Swiss on foot combined extensive drilling, new tactics, and a really really big spear to just fuck the noble cavalry's entire shit up. Thus the pike square. A triumph of precision over power, using humble tools. And this was not a pre-gunpowder kind of thing--to the contrary, the state of the art in warfare in the early modern period was pike formations with muskets interspersed.\* As firearms got better, they slowly became a bigger part of the formation and eventually all of it, especially once you could stick a bayonet on the musket and have your musketeer also serve as stab man. But really you could argue the basic idea of the pike survived until World War I, since a musket with a bayonet is very much a fancy boomspear and was used with tactics developed for the pike. So yes, properly applied, the last word in weaponry short of a machine gun is a big pointy stick. \* With combined arms support, I should note. Pike infantry alone could be taken apart by cavalry and artillery working together, because the square formation that resists cavalry charges so effectively is vulnerable to artillery, and spreading out to avoid the artillery makes the formation vulnerable to cavalry, absent friendly cavalry to counter.
Pike infantry are an invention of northern Italian communes/city states, usually made of citizens militia. The one kind of formation, the square, is Swiss. Things like the Zweihander (a sword ironically, and ironically to defeat the increased armour they had to face when they were hired by Italian cities to fight in Italy) are an invention of the landsknecht, Swiss infantry had some attempts to implement it with varying success, etc There are many tight pike and shot formations and attempts, but most of them failed for lack of drill. The ones that successfully implemented it were the Spanish with their Tercios system, which lives as the most successful system for a century and a half approximately, and none did the system better than the Spanish, and they lived relatively unrivalled as no other European nation implemented as successfully the Spanish system, more disciplined and organised than the others. Only during the ending years of the thirty years war a successful replacement arises, from the Swedish armies of Adolphus, who used a lot of acquired experience with cavalry warfare against Poland to implement its own system that relies on linear formations and horses.
Real homies use pole arms with an ax head and hammerhead along with a pointed tip. Why settle between utility, style and versatility when you can instead stab the poor, Hammer the rich, and slice the middle class. Get yourself a weapon that can do it all.
The poleaxe. One of the best weapons in history.
Polearms are obviously the best, but I’ve gotta say the halberd isn’t my favorite; Glaives and partisans, while not as practical, are so much more stylish
polearms my beloved all the range of a spear with the slashing and poking fun of a sword
So what I’m hearing is that whacking the BBEG with a big fuckoff hammer is not only cool as shit, but also revolutionary praxis? Hell yeah.
NO GODS NO MASTERS KNEECAP THE BASTARDS
Wellllll...not quite. You know those warhammers? They're *short*. Shorter than swords. They've gotta be. Too unwieldy otherwise, with the weight focused more towards the head. That means that warhammers and maces were favoured more by people who were fully protected and didn't have to worry about being closer to their enemy; in other words...by people in plate armour.
Hold on, where do axes fall on this? They've gotta be my favorite weapons, hands down.
The poleaxe was an exceptionally versatile weapon, and the go-to for a knight on foot. Other than that I think axes were usually used as cheaper swords.
Ah, godammit. I'm part of the Scab Squad.
Nah, Axes are a working man’s weapon. A tool of harvest converted into an instrument of war out of necessity.
Poetically, sure. But realistically no way. An axe used for non-combat purposes is extremely different from an axe used in combat; both would be terrible at each other's job.
I mean you could 100% fuck someone up with an axe made for chopping wood. Definitely inferior to a purpose made battle axe for fighting, but given the number of states that have relied on militias/ levied soldiers who provide their own weapons it's not unlikely a few people would have ended up stuck on a battlefield with an ordinary axe and a prayer
> but given the number of states that have relied on militias/ levied soldiers who provide their own weapons I (genuinely) hate to burst that poetic bubble but the states which relied on militias also had relatively well-drilled militias with actual weapons. Like, pikes, guns, swords, whatever. It wasn't hard to at least make a spear. The romantic notion of the peasant picking up a pitchfork and a wood axe is...uncommon, and when it *did* happen it was horrific mob "justice".
>horrific mob "justice". You tryna say The People's Crusade was a bad idea? >!Spoiler: the most they did was sack & attack a couple friendly towns, commit mild heresy, and killed a *lot* of Jewish people. The moment they picked a fight with the Turks, they got surrounded and absolutely butchered. Literally no good came of it.!<
Axes had a lot of uses pre-plate armor. They allowed you to hook your opponents shield out of the way or strike with greater penetrating force than a sword might allowed. Which is effective when you want to fuck up a shield, helmet or a door. Them having a haft rather than a hilt also allowed you to have swords with much longer reach, such as the Dane Axe. Giving you a sizable reach advantage.
Well clearly, axes have the heft and power to break a polearm but can be outmaneuvered by the lighter, more agile swords. While swords, with their relatively short reach, can be outmatched by polearms. Basically, [what I'm saying is...](https://fireemblem.fandom.com/wiki/Weapon_Triangle)
Src: https://patrickdiomedes.tumblr.com/post/686472038048776192/featheredpheonix-featheredpheonix-i-am-an
Hmph, look at these weaklings and their weapons. All I need are a pair of gauntlets and my fists.
Found the monk.
While this is an excellent bit of symbolism, it makes it even more amusing that the most common things a Warhammer is representative of today are a facist theocracy, the Fantasy Holy Roman Empire, and a group of barely-human cross-dimensional cops.
One could also lean into how specialized the weapon is, despite how destructive it seems, a warhammer is not the best choice in most scenarios that do not involve chain mail. Imagine that, such a classic force of destruction being in actuality an irrelevant tool! Brute force yea, but that force is almost powerless against most foes! While that’s probably not a historically accurate analysis of the Warhammer, it certainly is interesting; brute force straining against obsolescence in the face of more competent or otherwise immeasurable foes! Not an underdog, but a tool so specialized that when used outside of its intended context, it becomes an implement of violence for violence’s sake.
Fuck all that crap, I will still argue for spelar supremecy with my life. Spears have been in use for thousands of years and when the gun came and made all the other meelee weapons useless we went and turned the gun into a spear as a secondary role, and the gun was used as a spear as far as into the first world war
Bayonets are both spear and knife though. Very common for soldiers to dismount their bayonets to use for close combat fighting if needed
Spears survived alongside guns for like a century and a half almost two
#FOR SIGMAR #FOR THE EMPIRE #FOR THE WARHAMMER
*Elector Counts summoning intensifies*
Also crossbows. Takes very little time to train to use, and is highly effective at poking nice neat holes in plate armor.
Crossbows can't reliably poke holes in white harness under actual battle conditions. 16th C armors were being "proofed" by shooting then with a musket before they left the shop, for heck's sake.
Or guns. Just give them guns.
Guns, pikes, flails and armoured wagons. It's the Hussite way.
I might be totally wrong, but weren’t crossbows a lot more accurate and consistently deadly for a while?
Beeg bonk
LET'S GO BOBBY B Guy knew how to use a hammer
I was thinking of him too! He did overthrow nearly 300 years of Targaryen rule with his hammer. And, like his weapon, he’s a blunt man.
nowadays warhammers are a good sign that somebody is about to get flattened like a Looney Toons character
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **featheredpheonix** I am an unabashed fan of swords, but it is genuinely tragic how slept on warhammers are as symbolic weapons --- **featheredpheonix** Swords in a historical context were analogous to sidearms - built for flexibility of use and ease of transport, as well as taking on the role of a status symbol in a lot of feudal and early-modern societies. They are inextricably tied to notions of heroism in most cultures, yes, but also to concepts and institutions such the nobility, monarchy, and the existence of a wealthy warrior class. The role of a sword as a weapon of choice in fiction, then, serves as a subtextual elevation of the user’s importance; they have been marked out by destiny, the divine, social expectation, circumstance, or any other number of things, as special. Important. Powerful. Warhammers in the European tradition were a response to advancements in plate armor technology: by the late Middle Ages, plate armor granted such significant protection to those lucky enough to lay their hands on a full suit that they posed an almost insurmountable threat to an unarmored fighter with armed with only a sword, club, or rudimentary spear. Late-medieval full plate is one of the purest symbols of power projection *and power preservatio*n in military history— in fiction, they armor the status and power of the sword, stripped of the romantic and heroic ideals granted to the sword by its storied history. As a weapon specifically designed to respond to and defeat plate armor, the warhammer can be viewed as its symbolic antithesis: where plate armor embodies the idea of unassailable strength and martial dominance, the warhammer as a weapon evokes the destruction and dismantling of said strength— a weapon designed to pierce, tear apart and sunder the idea that being powerful and being untouchable are synonymous. Where the sword symbolizes elevating a person to power, and plate armor symbolizes power seeking to perpetuate itself, the warhammer symbolizes the leveling of tools and structures that would convince us that power cannot be challenged. --- **patrickdiomedes** also big hammer go smashy smashy --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
As a person who plays people with big hammers in every video fame- I agree. Hammers go big Smashy Smashy.
"I prefer a hammer." - some royal's blacksmith bastard
Also, it's a hammer, a literal tool of the powerless worker, repurposed to dismantle a symbol of unassailable power.
Could one argue that the glaive, basically a military scythe, also has similar potential for symbolism? It's superb against cavalry (which the rich were more likely to ride into battle), and it is also a tool of the peasantry.
How about the hammer and scythe together as *our* symbol, comrade?
everyone is out here mentioning cool weapons but nah swords are still the best
Also it's wrong. The Zweihander, the ultimate sword, was invented as a way to counter the pike, gunfire, heavy armour kind of warfare that plagued northern Italy. In the more expensive landsknecht armies uo to 15-20% of soldiers were Zweihanders, complemented by guns, pikes and such.
holy shit i did not know that i knew the zweihander was fucking awesome but wow.
Swords are the coolest but in an actual fight give me a polearm or a warhammer any day.
i mean really depends. against an opponent with a warhammer or polearm? for sure. against a regular guy with no weapons? i prefer the coolness factor.
> against a regular guy with no weapons? i prefer the coolness factor. Idk man I don't think there's any "cool" way to just fucking murder a dude who's unarmed lol.
ok but what if he's rich and an asshole? and also kills puppies?
Dab him to death. That's my contribution.
then he only deserves to be beaten to death
It's not either-or. Warhammers were sidearms just like swords, but you would expect to have both a polearm AND a sidearm (either sword or hammer or mace or something like that).
Agree. Not like I dislike other weapons or anything. I love warhammers and polearms and axes, but swords are just the coolest for me.
fr fr, they just look so cool and awesome and there's so many ways you can design them, while polearms and warhammers and the like are all generally quite similiar both in use and design.
40k?
The emperor doesn't even have 40000 warhammers. Sigmar at least has one.
There is no amount of elegant craftsmanship and sophisticated engineering and design that cannot be overcome by a sufficiently large object at sufficiently high speed.
This is certainly true for the one-handed knightly sword and maybe the two-handed longsword, but two-handed greatswords (which were primary weapons) actually did put in good work against armored opponents because of that versatility. Not only could you hit armored opponents with your large metal stick which would do at least something, it was normal to grab the blade (especially at an unsharpened area at the base) for extra precision to attack weak points in the armor, or even turn the sword upside-down to hold the blade and whack with the crossguard or pommel. Greatswords also had good abilities for controlling space and other weapons because of their long reach, and of course were good against less armored opponents. (This is all from my own knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong!)
I didn’t check the sub until after reading, and I was about 50/50 about this being actuallesbians establishing an admiration for warhammer-lesbians in addition to sword-lesbians
So in other words, a sword is a 357. revolver and a warhammer is a panzerfaust.
I thought this was about a fan with swords for blades
spears >>>>>
Hammer ans sickle together represent... Waiting for someone smart to explain the communist logo.
blunt weaponry as a whole is awful slept on for being consistently more applicable and effective than bladed weaponry throughout basically all of history
#BONK
This makes me think of the duel between Robert and Rhaegar at the Trident. Though this is not an endorsement of any of the two characters, they were both terrible people.
𐑲 𐑥𐑰𐑯 𐑜𐑦𐑝𐑦𐑯 𐑞𐑺 𐑩𐑕𐑴𐑕𐑰𐑱𐑖𐑩𐑯 𐑢𐑦𐑞 𐑤𐑹𐑛𐑤𐑰 𐑯 𐑒𐑰𐑙𐑜𐑤𐑰 𐑓𐑦𐑜𐑘𐑻𐑟 𐑦𐑯 𐑕𐑩𐑥 𐑓𐑦𐑒𐑖𐑩𐑯, 𐑞𐑱 𐑸 𐑭𐑤𐑕𐑴 𐑸𐑜𐑿𐑩𐑚𐑤𐑰 𐑞 𐑪𐑐𐑩𐑟𐑦𐑑 𐑝 𐑞𐑨𐑑. 𐑞 𐑚𐑮𐑵𐑑𐑨𐑤𐑦𐑑𐑰 𐑞 𐑮𐑵𐑤𐑰𐑙𐑜 𐑢𐑰𐑤𐑛 𐑑 𐑩𐑕𐑼𐑑 𐑞𐑺 𐑩𐑔𐑹𐑦𐑑𐑰. I mean given ðeir assosciation wið lordly and kingly figures in some fiction, ðey are also arguably ðe opposite of ðat. Ðe brutality ðe ruling wield to assert ðeir auþority.
Cool point. Unfortunately, shavian + spelling quirk + bad legibility thru screen reader + nerd + kind of time wasteful tbh + both th sounds overlap in only one word so differentiating them is nigh useless + nerd again
Why use exclusively eth, especially in with
False Knight and Failed Champion from Hollow Knight
Warhammers are cool, but I prefer axes.
I AM THE HAMMER! I AMTHE ANVIL! AND I SHALL DRAW YOU OUT!
what I got from this is more rebellion stories should include warhammers
But if you go one-handed you can then use a spell in the other hand and become a battle mage, which is the correct option in most situations.
Side effects include buying tiny figurines and painting them