Discussion about the hypothetical scenario of a zombie apocalypse.
Unless stated otherwise, by zombie we're refering to The Walking Dead -kind of undead creature.
Serious discussion only.
Header by ThomasJakeRoss @ Deviantart
I'm a bit torn between a splitting axe and a mace/morning star of some sort.
An axe offers better penetration and is useful for other tasks aswell but perhaps posseses greater risk of getting stuck. A mace is not as versatile but is highly effecive when making direct contact with the skull and is unlikely to get stuck. A mace is also easier to improvise and customize for individual preferences.
A splitting axe doesn't get anywhere near the top. Unless used as a synonym for "axes" in general. A splitting axe is too heavy and meant to be swung vertically utilizing gravity for the swing. You would tire out way too fast using it as a weapon, also vertical swings would have a huge risk of self-injury. A 1-handed axe is probably a much better choice, something like a carpenter's axe or hatchet. This could be in the top 5. If you really want to go two-handed axe, a felling axe is a better choice,
And of course, this takes availability into consideration. Something like a Luctern Hammer or Bec de Corbin would make the list of what's actually better. But unless you are next to a medieval blacksmith, I don't know how you would get one. I doubt the ones in a museum can still be reliably used.
In my view the weight is not so much a factor as long as it's not so heavy that you can't swing it effectively. If you're in a situation that you need to defend yourself with a melee weapon you pretty much only have one chance. If you don't drop it with the first swing you're wrestling next.
You make a good point though. A plain old hatchet will probably get the job done just aswell and trading some stopping power for accuracty might not be a bad trade. I don't think a sledge hammer for example would be any good because of its weight but atleast the Fiskars splitting axe I have is nowehere near as heavy and I can swing it around quite easily.
I went for a one-handed axe. I don't like a splitting axe because I feel like the primary strength of zombies is the horde, and that a splitting axe doesn't have the mobility to allow you to fend off one threat and then quickly recover and position yourself to fend off another. There's too much momentum in starting a swing, and too much momentum in stopping one if you miss.
There is something cathartic about an overhead swing with a woodsplitter that you pour so much of yourself into that you almost leave your feet, though. When I was younger going out to split wood for the furnace was what passed for mental health care.
A hookbill is pretty nice. Plenty of options, pushing/pulling, blunt or edged attacks. A mace is reliable and easy to use for survivors that may be gun shy.
I'm going to vote for the Katana sword. Light weight, sharp, and should not fatigue as quickly compared to the heavy blunt weapons.
That one’s my vote for best. What are you putting above it?
Either a mattock or a Halligan bar. Gotta pay respects to the little-known heroes
when you can't carry any number of single-purpose tools and can't be guaranteed long-term shelter in which to house them, you need things that do many jobs. I think that a hatchet or a tomahawk fulfills the role of something that can pop a noggin with minimal training or effort from the end user, something that will be useful during the 23 hours and 48 minutes of an average day where the tasks you need to perform to survive don't actually involve popping noggins at all, and is relatively easy to maintain both wrt sharpness and the ability to replace the handle as-needed.
Have you ever fucked around with any weapons? Like, not training, that's expensive and not applicable to everything, but really taken something out to a quiet and secluded place and fucked shit up with things.
Half of what's on there will get you killed because you can't move them with agility and speed. Which you have to have vs multiple opponents.
what's your suggestion then, or even specifically which weapons are you trying to rebut?
Depends on what kind of zombie you're working with. There's so many basic versions now that it's impossible to be generalized in weapon choice. Ever just the split between slow and fast zombies makes it difficult.
But, if you go with the classic slow zombie ala night of the living dead, you want something like a machete in size and weight. Mobility matters in that kind of fiction, and when you start doing weapons training (regardless of origin), lighter weapons always let you move the most. Single handed weapons are almost always lighter.
Something like a katana is better reach, but you sacrifice a free hand for a bite shield with that type of zombie something to shove in their face at a bare minimum.
Baseball bats are vastly exaggerated in the damage they can do with a single hit. Living people can be killed like that because our brains are more vulnerable to coup/contracoup injury and the affects of skull traced fracture. Zombies don't get edema or the other problems from superficial TBI, you gotta get the brain stem at least damaged. Even with Walking Dead scenarios where the zombies don't follow human physiology, the one hit kills by a bat are bullshit. It just doesn't work like that outside of the hand waving of fiction. And, imo, zombie apocalypse thought experiments like this should have a basis in at least semi-realistic scenarios, otherwise I'm casting magic missile every time.
So, stuff like axes and maces that would be great in war based on history fail vs zombies because you can't reliably destroy the parts of the brain that keep zombies moving in non-magic scenarios. Not in one hit, anyway. And if you've ever chopped wood, you know that tool axes are not something you can swing from the "hip" with. You use gravity and muscle to make them effective. A hatchet would be better than a wood axe because at least you can kinda chop sideways with one and have a chance at a zombie finish in one hit.
Plus, if you've done weapon training in more than one type (even at a casual level), the bigger the weapon, the faster you run out of steam. You do a dozen reps of the same technique in iaido, and you're feeling it. Same with kendo, and shinai are lighter than even the aluminum versions a lot of iaidoka use.
If you're on the run, fighting zombies up close, they don't run out of gas, but we will. And nobody has the gas to both run and swing a fire axe every time a zombie gets close without eventually exhausting themselves, and that's a bad scenario.
You gotta remember, most swords and such weren't used for sustained fighting historically. Infantry carried spears and polearms, and there was still attrition due to fatigue. But those aren't good for skirmishes (which is the only smart choice vs zombies if you're alone or in small groups). Spears work, but you'd be better off with shorter versions like the zulu are famous for. They take precision for zombies though, and that's not ideal.
Nah, you want one handed blades with just enough weight to damage or destroy the brain stem. Nothing bigger than a machete, though you'd ideally want something with a better steel choice and less proclivity to deformation than the typical machete. You'd want to invest in a good one of those.
And, if we go after fast zombies ala resident evil, the problem gets compounded. You don't have time for precision, but hits that slow them are useful, so you're having to hit more often per zombie. And you'll be doing it on the move with higher speed because you can't just stand there and step from zombie to zombie without being swarmed hard.
Even in training with "practice" weapons, two opponents is a nightmare. Three becomes a very dangerous situation no matter how long you've trained. I've seen pretty skilled dudes with advanced training get negated by numbers of much lower ranked partners. Three is about where anyone ends up in a position where survival would be difficult if things were real
Zombies roll deep. Dozens, hundreds of the fuckers depending on the writer/scenario.
Nah, you want one handed blades with just enough weight to damage or destroy the brain stem. Nothing bigger than a machete, though you’d ideally want something with a better steel choice and less proclivity to deformation than the typical machete. You’d want to invest in a good one of those.
A kukri sounds like a good example of what you are suggesting. It's an Indian dagger/short sword that has a recurve and a thicker portion from the middle to near the end of the blade moving the center of gravity up and adding a heft that gives the weapon an effective chopping ability. In addition to being a weapon it is effective as a utility knife and as a light axe.