Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Vikings would certaintly pick a sword up if they found one.

Swords would, once accuired, be passed down generation to generation. and when a sword could no longer be repaired, it would be smelted down and reforged(primary reason for Swords prestiege was expense of the amount metal it took to make one)


Vikings, and by extension the Anglo-saxons and Franks, actually preferred Axes when fighting in shield walls because an Axe was capable of chopping through wooden shields while a sword would simply bounce off.

Axes could also be thrown with devstating effect. Francesca throwing Axes could maim or kill several men at once if thrown into a seething mass of bodies, or they could lodge in a shield and weigh it down.

^Did you play Rome: Totar War Barbarian Invasion?

yes i did,

No i am NOT using the game as reference.

Francesca throwing Axes could maim or kill several men at once if thrown into a seething mass of bodies, or they could lodge in a shield and weigh it down.

That line is almost word for word for the custom battle entry for Frankish Axemen.

Coencidince I assure you, I haven't played Barbarian Invasion for over a year.

In the book Warblade of the Konrad series (I think it's warblade. It's the last of the three books) there is a dwarf smith in marienburg who is trained with swords. It also explores why dorfs don't use them that much and this BL book boils it down to their size essentially.

What the size of the Dwarf or the size of the sword? considering swords can be forged to suit the size of their user and that dwarf smiths woulden't make swords that are too large for dwarves to use just like they woulden't make swords to short for humans to use.

Ratbarf you said only noblemen could be Viking warriors, that's no true all men were required to own weapons and were permitted to wearing them at all times.

No, I said that all vikings were warriors, the majority of which would have been the retinue for scandinavian equivalent of a nobleman. They would have had the money to equip with swords.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:What the size of the Dwarf or the size of the sword? considering swords can be forged to suit the size of their user and that dwarf smiths woulden't make swords that are too large for dwarves to use just like they woulden't make swords to short for humans to use.

Both. This dorf was using a human longsword at the time trying to test Konrad to see if he was worthy of one of his masterwork swords.

That dosen't mean that Dwarves in general would used swords designed for humans.

@Ratbarf: Sorry man but you're wrong, if the sword was the main weapon (the primary weapon that they used in battle) you still haven't explained why they would use an axe to take out someones shield then switch to a sword to kill them waisting seconds that the enemy or his allies could turn against them. It just dosen't make sense, what if they started fighting someone else with a shield would they just drop their sword and pick up their axe again then drop it for the sword? The vikings main weapon was not the sword, you've had 3 or 4 people tell you this and all you can say is "if memory serves right". Well if you have 3 or 4 people telling you you're wrong then obviously your memory isn't right.

Ratbarf wrote:No, I said that all vikings were warriors, the majority of which would have been the retinue for scandinavian equivalent of a nobleman. They would have had the money to equip with swords.

Oh sorry, misread my fault.

One thing to keep in mind is the scale of the sword not only for the Dwarf but for the opponent. A dwarf-sized axe is still pretty hefty, whereas a Dwarf-sized sword would be, IMHO, silly compared to the blades of a Chaos Champion, or even an Orc. Hell, to a Greater Daemon or even a Troll it'd look like a butterknife (though most weapons do)

Cryonicleech wrote:One thing to keep in mind is the scale of the sword not only for the Dwarf but for the opponent. A dwarf-sized axe is still pretty hefty, whereas a Dwarf-sized sword would be, IMHO, silly compared to the blades of a Chaos Champion, or even an Orc. Hell, to a Greater Daemon or even a Troll it'd look like a
butterknife (though most weapons do)

I really don't see how this is in any way relevant to why Dwarves woulden't use swords, "Oh my enemy is huge and to him this sword would be tiny so I won't use it". If that was the case then every weapon in WFB would have to be the exact same size or else none of them would be effective. The sword of a Elven warrior won't be as big as the sword of a Chaos Warrior but will that stop the Elf from killing it? (no). A dwarven axe (any dwarven axe) is smaller then an axe used by a Minotaur yet that dosen't stop a Dwarf from fighting the Minotaur. The size of an opponent dosen't determine IF a weapon is used or not it determines how it is used. And swords can be just as "hefty" as an axe.

@Ratbarf: Sorry man but you're wrong, if the sword was the main weapon (the primary weapon that they used in battle) you still haven't explained why they would use an axe to take out someones shield then switch to a sword to kill them waisting seconds that the enemy or his allies could turn against them. It just dosen't make sense, what if they started fighting someone else with a shield would they just drop their sword and pick up their axe again then drop it for the sword? The vikings main weapon was not the sword, you've had 3 or 4 people tell you this and all you can say is "if memory serves right". Well if you have 3 or 4 people telling you you're wrong then obviously your memory isn't right.

I go by memory because when it comes to my reading of historical texts it's rather good. I've corrected my history teacher before on some glaring, some not so glaring, points before, and he has a PhD in the stuff.

And it's the second rank that uses the axes, the first rank uses swords to stab underneath the shield of their opponent, aiming for their groin area/thighs as mail haubergons usually don't protect that area. Although, most vikings wouldn't fight in a shieldwall if they could help it. Their raiders, they go after weakly defended villages/monasteries/churches. They hated fighting against well defended or equipped opponents as that was like as not going to cause casualties. And casualties means less rowers on your longboat. Swords are great for one on ones or killing people not properly equipped or prepared to fight back. Axe's are for the heavy work, as an axe when used one on one is less effective than a sword, as it's not as mobile. But in a tight formation such as a shield wall where your enemy can't move side to side, it's ideal. However, Vikings tried to avoid heavy fighting unless it was a full scale invasion such as was seen in 9th centurie britain.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:One thing to keep in mind is the scale of the sword not only for the Dwarf but for the opponent. A dwarf-sized axe is still pretty hefty, whereas a Dwarf-sized sword would be, IMHO, silly compared to the blades of a Chaos Champion, or even an Orc. Hell, to a Greater Daemon or even a Troll it'd look like a
butterknife (though most weapons do)

I really don't see how this is in any way relevant to why Dwarves woulden't use swords, "Oh my enemy is huge and to him this sword would be tiny so I won't use it". If that was the case then every weapon in WFB would have to be the exact same size or else none of them would be effective. The sword of a Elven warrior won't be as big as the sword of a Chaos Warrior but will that stop the Elf from killing it? (no). A dwarven axe (any dwarven axe) is smaller then an axe used by a Minotaur yet that dosen't stop a Dwarf from fighting the Minotaur. The size of an opponent dosen't determine IF a weapon is used or not it determines how it is used. And swords can be just as "hefty" as an axe.

The size of an opponent does determine if a weapon is used... If you're fighting something big, you wouldn't walk around with a dagger now, would you? A small sword in the hands of a Dwarf is small enough to be parried aside, and would lack the adequate reach to threaten someone like a Chaos Warrior. Sure, an axe has even less reach, but an axe has greater strength behind the swing.

And no, a sword is not as hefty. Ever cut down a tree with a sword? No. Ever cut a tree with an axe? Damn skippy. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Small point, but it's worth mentioning that Dwarves have a massive aversion to swords. They're untraditional, which to a Dwarf is almost the same thing as being wrong.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure it mentions somewhere that the Dwarven aversion to swords was why it took Aleric The Mad so long to forge the Runefangs.

Hammers and axes are the way to go. A real dwarf only uses a sword to cut bread... if an axe is unavailable that is.

A dwarf on the field (not at home where proper tools are surely available), uses his axe for hunting, getting firewood, cooking, eating, grooming and occasionally to fight.

Ratbarf wrote:

@Ratbarf: Sorry man but you're wrong, if the sword was the main weapon (the primary weapon that they used in battle) you still haven't explained why they would use an axe to take out someones shield then switch to a sword to kill them waisting seconds that the enemy or his allies could turn against them. It just dosen't make sense, what if they started fighting someone else with a shield would they just drop their sword and pick up their axe again then drop it for the sword? The vikings main weapon was not the sword, you've had 3 or 4 people tell you this and all you can say is "if memory serves right". Well if you have 3 or 4 people telling you you're wrong then obviously your memory isn't right.

I go by memory because when it comes to my reading of historical texts it's rather good. I've corrected my history teacher before on some glaring, some not so glaring, points before, and he has a PhD in the stuff.

And it's the second rank that uses the axes, the first rank uses swords to stab underneath the shield of their opponent, aiming for their groin area/thighs as mail haubergons usually don't protect that area. Although, most vikings wouldn't fight in a shieldwall if they could help it. Their raiders, they go after weakly defended villages/monasteries/churches. They hated fighting against well defended or equipped opponents as that was like as not going to cause casualties. And casualties means less rowers on your longboat. Swords are great for one on ones or killing people not properly equipped or prepared to fight back. Axe's are for the heavy work, as an axe when used one on one is less effective than a sword, as it's not as mobile. But in a tight formation such as a shield wall where your enemy can't move side to side, it's ideal. However, Vikings tried to avoid heavy fighting unless it was a full scale invasion such as was seen in 9th centurie britain.

Hmm so why would the second rank even need the axes to hack through the shield if the first rank used the swords to get around them, based off of what you say every viking had a sword (which they'd have to in order for it to be considered their main weapon). And if it was as easy as you make it seem for the first rank to get their swords around the enemies shield (oh wait, it wasen't) why would they need axes at all because according to you they all had swords. You're putting more and more holes in your "theory", if you want to argue with 3-4 people who are telling you you're wrong then fine be my guest.

Cryonicleech wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:One thing to keep in mind is the scale of the sword not only for the Dwarf but for the opponent. A dwarf-sized axe is still pretty hefty, whereas a Dwarf-sized sword would be, IMHO, silly compared to the blades of a Chaos Champion, or even an Orc. Hell, to a Greater Daemon or even a Troll it'd look like a
butterknife (though most weapons do)

I really don't see how this is in any way relevant to why Dwarves woulden't use swords, "Oh my enemy is huge and to him this sword would be tiny so I won't use it". If that was the case then every weapon in WFB would have to be the exact same size or else none of them would be effective. The sword of a Elven warrior won't be as big as the sword of a Chaos Warrior but will that stop the Elf from killing it? (no). A dwarven axe (any dwarven axe) is smaller then an axe used by a Minotaur yet that dosen't stop a Dwarf from fighting the Minotaur. The size of an opponent dosen't determine IF a weapon is used or not it determines how it is used. And swords can be just as "hefty" as an axe.

The size of an opponent does determine if a weapon is used... If you're fighting something big, you wouldn't walk around with a dagger now, would you?

1. When fighting in hth like this very few soldiers would have had the optimal weapon for every opponent (and having a huge weapon for a huge opponent is by no means the optimal weapon). 2. There are a number of GW models that do in fact have daggers and do in fact fight large things. 3. Daggers can be thrown killing the large opponent from afar 4. Most large things are also slow so a smart fighter woulden't want a large heavy weapon that would slow them down they would want a weapon that would allow them to use their speed

A small sword in the hands of a Dwarf is small enough to be parried aside, and would lack the adequate reach to threaten someone like a Chaos Warrior

Hmm one handed axes (like those used by the dwarves) can be parried, 2 handed axes can be parried, just about any weapon can be parried (you are aware that GW even has a rule in game to do this). And you are aware that not every cc weapon has to have a 6 foot reach right (which is why not every weapon made is a huge one)? ok good just checking.

Sure, an axe has even less reach, but an axe has greater strength behind the swing.

Wow contradictory much, you say the size of the weapon is critical for when it is used in relation to the opponent and make a specific point about reach yet admit that most axes have a shorter reach then most swords. Make up your mind pal. Besides the strength behind the swing is going to be the same for a sword and an axe if used by the same being (the strength of the swing is proportionate to the user), the differance behind it is how that strength is amplified through the blade (this has already been covered if you care to read earlier posts).

And no, a sword is not as hefty. Ever cut down a tree with a sword? No. Ever cut a tree with an axe? Damn skippy. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

You are aware that the intended use of a weapon does not determine if it is hefty or not right? Let's see the Kanabo (a large japanese club) is not used for chopping down trees and yet it is a hefty weapon. And since you've obviously never lifted a sword or heard of weapons like the claymore, broadsword and longsword (all known for their HEFT) I suggest you do a bit more research or get some first hand knowledge of actual weapons. Even knives can be hefty weapons. And just because you seem to equate wood chopping with heft let me make something clear here, the ability to chop wood (which some blades are actually used for believe it or not) does not determine if something has heft or not.

Hmm so why would the second rank even need the axes to hack through the shield if the first rank used the swords to get around them, based off of what you say every viking had a sword (which they'd have to in order for it to be considered their main weapon). And if it was as easy as you make it seem for the first rank to get their swords around the enemies shield (oh wait, it wasen't) why would they need axes at all because according to you they all had swords. You're putting more and more holes in your "theory", if you want to argue with 3-4 people who are telling you you're wrong then fine be my guest.

Just because there are a lot of people who hold different opinions than mine doesn't make them right.

As for the holes in my theory, I think they came about more so because of my inept skills at explanation than because of any historical fault. So let me set it up for you, A shield wall 6 men deep faces a similar shield wall 6 men deep. The front row uses swords of various kinds as stabbing weapons, the main targets being the unarmoured section of an opposing warrior, that being the groin and inner thigh area. The second rank is armed with axes or similar long handled slashing/chopping weapons. Their role is to kill the front rank of the opposing shield wall by providing cover for their own first rank. They provide the cover my holding their shield above the head of the man in front of them. They attempt to kill the other walls front rank by swinging their axe at the other walls first rank. But wait, the second rank of the other wall is holding their shields in a similar position, covering the man's head. So he must break through this shield to get at the man beneath.

And finally, simply because a shield could be beaten doesn't mean that it was easy to do so. I would assume, and at this point I am assuming because I havn't read anything that would seem to confirm it, that the second rank in a shield wall is attacking high while the first rank is attacking low, splitting the attention of the defender and allowing one of the attacks to get through.

So Ratbarf, how about this http://shield-wall.co.tv/, especially:

The powerful weapons of the time, like big swords and axes, were too large to use in the close press of the shield wall, so the more effective weapons were short swords maybe a foot long which could be stabbed under the opponent's shield into his groin or leg. This led a lot of professional warriors in Alfred the Great's army to carry two swords. Two-handed weapons were out of the question in a shield wall, due to the need to hold a shield in one hand.

....it was short swords (and possibly spears) then?
I am still of the opinion however, that Dwarves don't use swords because they are thought of as inferior weapons and are not a 'traditional Dwarven' weapon and would not be used.

Well ladies and gents it appears that we are all wrong, I have found a cannon example of a Dwarf using a sword.

Gotrek & Felix: Daemonslayer page 750 5th paragraph wrote:
Felix saw that one warrior managed to ram a runic blade into its back before it was aware of him. The blade stuck fast, protruding out from the Bloodthirster's shoulder blades before it turned and lashed out with its whip.

Now while this quote dosen't say that the blade was a sword this next one does

Gotrek & Felix: Daemonslayer page 753 4th paragraph wrote:Felix could see that it had taken damage. The dwarf guards sword still protruding from its back

So it is cannon fluff that Dwarves do in fact use swords. It may not be the most popular weapon, it may not be the most versatile weapon and every dwarf may not use them. But they do use them all the same

Hmm thats weird, still, most of the Dwarves are modelled with swords (cr y 'replacements' for if their good weapons get broken i imagine), but this is the first ive heard of a runic sword (except runefangs but they dont count)

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Well ladies and gents it appears that we are all wrong, I have found a cannon example of a Dwarf using a sword.

Gotrek & Felix: Daemonslayer page 750 5th paragraph wrote:
Felix saw that one warrior managed to ram a runic blade into its back before it was aware of him. The blade stuck fast, protruding out from the Bloodthirster's shoulder blades before it turned and lashed out with its whip.

Now while this quote dosen't say that the blade was a sword this next one does

Gotrek & Felix: Daemonslayer page 753 4th paragraph wrote:Felix could see that it had taken damage. The dwarf guards sword still protruding from its back

So it is cannon fluff that Dwarves do in fact use swords. It may not be the most popular weapon, it may not be the most versatile weapon and every dwarf may not use them. But they do use them all the same

I believe that, that is a reference to the short swords that Hammerers and Ironbreakers use as backup weapons. Also, I have to agree that the main and most important reason is tradition.

I would think the most likely reason is that GW wants to keep consistent looks among the disciplined armies of the Old World. Keeping dwarves to axes helps make them look more uniform, and therefore more like an army and less like a rabble.

Tradition is a good reason in the fluff, but we should realise that it's a retcon, there have been dwarf models in the past with swords, when the control over models wasn't as tight as it is now.

Grey Templar wrote:the main purpose of having an Axe as a weapon is its dual nature. you can use it to chop woods and offending parties into pieces of useful size.

Axes made for war are very different to axes made for chopping wood. The weighting and tempering of the metal is very different.

Dawi-Marine'Va wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:Well ladies and gents it appears that we are all wrong, I have found a cannon example of a Dwarf using a sword.

Gotrek & Felix: Daemonslayer page 750 5th paragraph wrote:
Felix saw that one warrior managed to ram a runic blade into its back before it was aware of him. The blade stuck fast, protruding out from the Bloodthirster's shoulder blades before it turned and lashed out with its whip.

Now while this quote dosen't say that the blade was a sword this next one does

Gotrek & Felix: Daemonslayer page 753 4th paragraph wrote:Felix could see that it had taken damage. The dwarf guards sword still protruding from its back

So it is cannon fluff that Dwarves do in fact use swords. It may not be the most popular weapon, it may not be the most versatile weapon and every dwarf may not use them. But they do use them all the same

I believe that, that is a reference to the short swords that Hammerers and Ironbreakers use as backup weapons.

I've read that book and it says that the Kings bodyguard (dosen't specify what they are exactly) all have runic weapons that where taken from fallen heroes since Karak Dum has been besieged by chaos for 20/200 years. If Dwarves are so against using swords then this particular Dwarf would have plenty of other options of a "suitable" back up weapon given the number of surplus weapons available.

And given that it's a runic sword I doubt it's a back up weapon since alot of attention is put into runic weapons to make them superior to standard weapons and really isn't the type of weapon that you use as back up. Although everyone knows that dawi weapons are superior to everyone elses Also since it doesen't say in the novel that it is a backup weapon it should be taken at face value that it is the main weapon that the Dwarf was using, saying it's a referance to a back up weapon is speculation and can't be proven.

Just because dwatfs generally dislike swords that dosen't mean no dwarfs use them.

HoverBoy wrote: ...dwatfs... ...swarfs...

Well now I'm just confused.

I'd like to see you type with a plastered left hand.