You forgot the fact that most of the time dwarves fight in tunnels. This makes long weapons a no go. So swords, axe (which can be used against enemy shields) and hammers (again good against shields and also reminiscent of the hammer they use to forge. Also a real warhammer looks a bit like a pickaxe. again something they use regularly. so it is something familiar to them). Fighting in tunnel means shields are even better for them (heavy armored shield wall blocking a tunnel With a row of crossbows behind them).
I don't think you fully understand combat. Spears are very effective in tunnels. REACH wins more medieval fights than anything else. A dwarf in a tunnel with a stupid axe would die immediately to a halberd overhead pull or spear thrust. Even with the shield covering most the body there would still be many ways to exploit their openings, especially considering shields aren't see-through . Obviously things like a greatsword, which require long wide spinning swings, would be ineffective in tunnels unless half-sworded. But most polearms with a pointy boi would be just fine.
@@SharkByteOfficial ya... halberd on tunnel, good luck on that one buddy. What part of tunnel do you not understand? Tunnel don't just mean narrow in width, it could be narrow both in width and height, completely relying on weapon that require great space of width and height to be use at it's best is suicidal. Spears are very effective in tunnels. Sure, assuming you fighting against unarmored opponent, but what about full plate armored opponent? Dwarves are known for for their metal technology, blacksmith technique and whatnot. So it should not be surprising that they fighting style is revolving around "wear heavy armor and break their bones with blunt weapon and cut their head off to finish them off". Don't you say just sTaB tHeM iN eYeS! That's no different than saying that cops should aim the threat legs, paper spray their eyes 10 feet away, or taze their ass as if it's fail-proof. It's unrealistic and/or unreliable, pure hollywood fantasy. In Dragon Age, they would agreed with you, spears(assuming the darkspawn armor aren't advance, which they are, pretending the armor they wearing is decent at best and worst, and they not stupid enough to NOT equip their grunt with a decent helmet), and halberd would be great for the dwarves(assuming the dwarves will always be fighting on large open space bridge and tunnel) but in real world, you don't get to chose your battlefield. So what weapon that the dwarves can use in any situation not including range weapon? A shield(to protect against blunt weapon, that's the reason full plate/armored knight still using them, once you go full plate, only blunt weapon can harm you not including specailize weapon), a 1 handed weapon or 2 handed (short) weapon, short enough where narrow place would not hinder your fighting capability. Like the thumbnail.
long weapon a no go? Not quite exactly, long pole weapon would be hard to transport, yes, but their reach would give a massive advantage on the narrowness of the tunels. The answer is easy, telescopic weapons.
@@SharkByteOfficial So you telling us that you in a tunnel would be better then full plate wearing dwarf with a big ass axe? dwarf who are like 3 to 4 time stronger then normal human? I believe not, yes in fight range is good but range mean nothing if you cant hit, shield beat spear inside tunnel and you cant turn because it to small a space.
Agreed.In all my tabletop gaming experiences with many games dwarves have always been stronger than humans.D&D,Warhammer,Rolemaster,Middle Earth Role playing(ironcrown) advanced D&D gamma world etc.
No they arent. In DnD they just get a Con boost. They are as strong as an average human. However that is condensed in a smaller frame, so that is something
I take Taekwondo, and one of the tactics we teach our students if they're sparring someone taller than them is to get in close. Up close, their opponent can't effectively kick as easily, because the length of their legs actually gets in the way. I think this is the strategy behind giving dwarves short 1-handed axes. Dwarves should have good armor, and giving them short weapons allows them to get in close and inside the lever arm of their enemies. Their enemy will have a tough time generating armor-piercing blows if the dwarf is too close. This kind of brutal up-close fighting seems to fit the personalities of dwarves that I've seen in Tolkien and in Warcraft.
And that Taekwondo lesson and me being a tall person is the reason why I switched to Muay Thai. Let the short man get in close. They're gonna get some elbows and continuous knees with a headlock grasp. Or a teep here and there to reassert my reach followed by shin roundhouse kicks. My point is, real combat has more strategies than just "me small so me play to advantage of getting close with stronk armur"... Neither party will just stand idle either. A lankier foe may still dispatch a dwarf rushing in as armor has never been very bash proof and you still can't run straight through a polearm unless you're lucky to deflect and fully disarm it. Otherwise the lanky polearm foe may just keep going backwards and taking more life threatening jabs at the poor dwarf.
with dwarves being short and stocky it'd be tough to knock them down too, and with their often superior strength getting in grapple/CQC range with a dwarf would often leave you at a disadvantage.
I describe the Dwarves themselves in a hopefully plausible manner, as follows: -- Dwarves are essentially evolved Neanderthals (Cave Men in most settings) with better brains (possibly even better than humans; to quote C.S. Lewis of Narnia Chronicles fame, “I never met a dwarf who was stupid”). I also give them at least as much weight (if not more) as a typical human on a different frame with fewer juvenile muscle traits than humans (making them stronger on the average than humans of equal weight), and a highly resistant physiology; plus, the normal Dwarvish traits such as Stone-Cunning and Thermographic Vision. -- With regards to magic, I make Dwarves more magic-resistant, but possessing limited-to-no arcane spell-casting ability. Their innate magic resistance makes them unable to channel the more delicate magical energies through their bodies, especially the energies of Wizard-type magic. -- Priestly spell-casting (primarily healing and the like), with Artificing (ability to imbue objects with magic) would be the sole Dwarven forms of spellcasting. The idea of Dwarven clerics enchanting weapons, armor, and even devices that can dispense clerical magics seems to be a sound one. -- A Dwarven cleric’s spell list should focus on Healing, Battle Magic (spells that enhance combat ability, armor, and weapons on self/personal and others, Fire, and Earth (including creature summoning for the last two without fear of the creature turning on its summoner).
@@mitsublanc-pegazzi5460, is this a Japanese source by any chance? I've also experimented with various sub-races of Dwarves, including: 1. Hill Dwarves: Your typical run-of-the-mill/fairly generic D&D Dwarves. 2. Mountain Dwarves: Taller than other Dwarves at up to 5' tall, heavier and stronger than humans. Somewhat isolationist mountain-dwellers and somewhat xenophobic (charisma penalty/constitution bonus/ strength bonus). Highly lawful (neutral or good). 3. Deep Dwarves: isolationist, somewhat xenophobic, and exclusively underground- dwelling, better infravision, slight disadvantage under daylight, better stone-cunning abilities with some innate spell-like abilities. Also longer arms and broader shoulders. More neutral than other Dwarves. 4. Dark Dwarves: Essentially D&D Duergar. Very lawful and very evil. Tall as mountain Dwarves but human-like build with no juvenile muscle characteristics to give higher strength. They also possess better than human average dexterity, and innate abilities of Hide in Shadows/move silently, plus a few spell-like abilities.
One reason why Dwarves prefer crossbows over bows is that when fighting in tunnels (common thing against goblins, and various underground creatures), bows are likely to be unwieldy, especially when ceilings are at Dwarf-head level.
+Cornered Fox Wouldn't that mean accelerating the arrow over a very short distance though? If you want arrows to have a lot of momentum, you need a strong force accelerating the arrow over a long distance. It's basic physics, projectile energy = work done by the bowstring = force times distance Crossbows are making up for the shorter draw distance by having higher draw weights than bows. You're suggesing having low draw weight (drawable by hand) and smaller bows, which would mean altogether very small projectile energy. Not good. Also, I'd think underground you'd rarely shoot over long distances (where bows excell due to heavier projectiles and fast rate of fire). Underground, it's good if you can get just one volley before engaging in melee. So I'd rather have a heavy crossbow that I shoot once, then switch to a polearm and shield for melee, without bothering to reload. So doesn't matter if the crossbow takes minutes to reload with a crank. Also, since we're talking about fighting in mineshafts, I'd guess many opponents will have metal armor. They live in mines where metal is mined, right? They'd make use of it. Especially if they are hostile Dwarves. But even if they're just orcs or goblins, they'd have plenty of metal. Possibly stolen from Dwarves. And underground monsters can have tough hides. So heavy crossbows can be really useful for piercing those. And against unarmored goblins? You might be able to kill several with a single shot of a 800-1200 lbs crossbow. And don't forget, in caves and mineshafts there are plenty of locations where you can find cover to safely reload that crossbow in case of a protracted battle. Or you can just use a shield for cover. All the while the frontline is very narrow in a tunnel. Not to mention the Dwarves excell in defense, which can prolong the battle long enough for the back rows to reload while the front rows fight in melee. Thus taking the time to reload is more akin to siege battles than battles in the open. All these conditions favor crossbows.
Narrow spaces and winding tunnels? Wind up crossbow and you're ready for anything that comes around a corner. Traditional bow? You're going to have to hold that thing ready for ages to ensure you're prepared for the inevitable dangerous corner. Draw rate? Due to the construction of a crossbow, the draw method (either winch, or foot stirrup and double handed draw), you can make the limbs significantly thicker/tenser. requiring shorter draw and shorter overall limb length. So you get the same amount (or more) energy stored in a more manoeuvrable, smaller spring. the extra power that comes from being able to use both hands more than makes up for any reduced draw distance. Modern crossbows, when compared with modern compound bows, shoot significantly heavier projectiles at significantly higher speeds. something like 40-45% more kinetic energy and ~30% more momentum is imparted into the bolt even when compared to a 70 pound draw weight compound bow.) Similarly, dwarves are renowned for being heavily armoured. probably something to do with their mining/manufacturing culture and the reduced quantity of metal it takes to encase the smaller body. Which is better at piecing thick armour at short distances? Crossbow. Let's face it, there's a reason why crossbows became more popular and longbows and compound bows less favourable with the advent of heavy plate armour.
+radred609 I don't think there's that much of a difference between holing a bow ready and holding a crossbow ready. Unless you're a masochist and you actually keep the bow drawn all the time. Regarding heavier projectiles, traditionally longbow arrows were heavier than crossbow bolts, but if we consider bolts made entirely out of metal, things could look different. Although keep in mind that traditional, wooden-shafted, front-heavy arrows and bolts gained a lot of stability from being built as such. And Dwarves probably don't have access to glass fiber, carbon fiber and similar modern materials. Aluminum or similar metals could work for the shaft though, while keeping the steel tip. With some fletching this should be stable enough. Also, I don't think a Dwarven armor would take less metal than a human one. First - Dwarves are stocky, with thicker limbs and torsos compared to humans. They weigh about the same as humans. Secondly, you adjust the amount of metal not based on size, but based on strength (how much protection can you wear before it causes more problems than benefits?). So Dwarven armors are thicker than human ones. Also, crossbows became more popular for a few more reasons. You don't need decades of training to use a high-power crossbow, as opposed to the most powerful longbows. Thus even peasants could be quickly armed with crossbows and still be effective. And crossbows are better at prolonged siege combat, both for the defenders and the attackers. Other than that, I agree with most of what you wrote.
Right, but if you're not holding it ready then there's the added response time. It's not much, but it's still there. Certainly not an issue in open combat. Potentially an issue in close quarters. Also, is not fair to be comparing crossbows to longbows in this specific instance. The expected height of a longbow archer is ~6'. A dwarf isn't going to have the draw length to properly utiliser a longbow and caverns are not condusive to the large limb length. And, sure, Dwarven armour may be thicker, but that's the point. It takes less metal to give the same amount if protection. So it's cheaper/easier to give more protection. They're two sides of the same point. However you word it, it's the same result: dwarves have more need for the added armour penetrarion of a crossbow.
That line always confused me. Why is a line of archers going to care if they can't hit a single guy? It's not like archers are systematically picking out targets to eliminate one by one anyway.
yes, the archers are not picking off a specific person, but they shoot large numbers of arrows into a group of enemies hoping to take a few out. If the enemy is small and completely covered by their shield, then the archers just become useless since they can't hit past the shield.
Depends on the projectiles, but this is mostly true. Remember the Romans used a javelin with a soft iron shaft that would penetrate the shield and bend, weighing down the shield until it becomes all but useless. Granted one arrow wouldn't have same weight as a five foot (or longer) javelin, and shields of that size wielded by people that short could be rested on the ground when you weren't moving, but I imagine twenty or thirty heavy war arrows would still add a lot of weight to a shield, assuming they can penetrate it and stick. But even in melee, shields do benefit shorter people a lot more. I remember a guy in my LARP group who used to be called the dwarf because he carried a big shield, regularly took hits to the legs, and then knelt down and turned into an impenetrable wall. I used to joke that he should fight like that from the start instead of trying to stand up.
So, I just found this series... and I have to say, I think you're off. The big problem with Polearms and long weapons for Dwarves is Leverage. Although they're the same strength, a human could disarm a bunch of Halberd-armed dwarves by dodging, then intercepting the attempt to regain control. The weapons are simply too unwieldy because the dwarves can't get enough space between their arms to leverage them properly. Instead, what Dwarves have to do is recognize they lost the Reach game, so instead, focus on getting INSIDE the enemy's reach (Using heavy armor on their arms, shoulders, and head to deflect blows in the meantime), and use heavy-headed weapons to increase striking momentum in short spaces. They'd use axes, DAGGERS, and two-handed kneecapping hammers.
Bearded Bjorn Since they need to get up close anyway due to their short reach, leverage isn’t an issue. In fact leverage and longer arms are a disadvantage in close quarters combat because you can’t get the full range of motion, but shorter arms still retain full range of movement.
You could scale them down slightly, also adding a weight to the other end like a butt spike could help with that issue, look at greek phalanxes were they used really long spears with one hand
One thing that a lot of people miss but is inherent in Dwarves is that they have a much lower center of gravity with their mass and strength. Dwarves would be fantastic grapplers due to this, capable of getting under their opponents. The author Markus Heitz uses this as a part of his introduction to a group of dwarves later on in the series "The Dwarves". The following is just a background of the reason for the iconicism of smaller weapons for dwarves, specifically the axe. Shad specifically addresses that he is talking about humanoid combatants in this series: A big reason for the pairing of short stature and no-reach is that a fighting tactic for dwarves (recounted in a number of DnD, Paizo, Palidium Press, and other game system books) is that they are constantly fighting giants and orcs rather than humanoids. Having the smaller weapons allows them to get between the legs of these larger creatures to do damage to the lower extremities before dealing death blows to the head.
Excellent video, but it fails to mention the armour dwarves would have used. Being shorter and sturdier than humans, armour is a thing where their shortness would actually be an advantage. Having smaller surface area than humans, their armours could have been twice or thrice as thick as human equivalent, and good luck in penetrating that much steel. They would be walking tanks.
In D&D, dwarven plate armor tends to be flat-out better than the human equivalent, and that's typically attributed to it being specifically-built for dwarves, not just because of dwarven craftsmanship. I always assumed it was because the armor was thicker.
twice or thrice as thick and made of mithril, the fantasy equivalent of adamantium or vibranium, and even better when it covers their whole body in spikes, like The Gutbuster Brigade. Imagine a mix between Wolverine, Rhino, and a porcupine. now imagine a battalion of them. it's also good to note that the weight of heavy armour will not impede a dwarf
Ay' true Enough their Ladd! BUT also a imagine the effectiveness of many little Sturdy Dwarf STEAMtank with the wolves in the wolven armour inside the Armored tank the mindwould over boggle at That? Lol;} Ta Ladz! .MM
But wouldn't axes be more effective than halberds within smaller, tighter spaces e.g. inside castle/keep walls or underground tunnels where Dwarves usually reside?
Phuoc Truong also consider than dwarves are usually heavily armored, male hauberk at least, and falchions are torally useless against proper made steel male and plate
Not necessarily. One of the features of a halberd is you can also use it like a spear, and that can be super effective in tight spaces, especially for defending doorways or tight hallways.
Since Dwarfs spend most of the their warfare lives underground fighting goblins and such, a long spear would be a disadvantage. Similarly a bow wouldn't work in a tunnel that's about as high as a dwarf is tall and it's main advantage (being able to fire over their own troops) wouldn't work either. As dwarfs have those large shield to compensate for their lack of reach, they should be charging in up close and use short stabbing weapons ala romans. Perhaps their preference for axes is due to their primary opponent (goblins) being thin, wiry, and hard to stab.
Just checking the video's about the fantasy-races etc. Don't agree with this one, the standard dwarf, the Dungeons&Dragons and also the LOTR dwarf, is stronger than the average human. In LOTR it isn't really clear, but in most fantasy games/books the dwarf is a lot stronger and they live under the ground, in caves, mountains etc. So polearms or swords wouldn't be handy. A short, not as short as goblins or gnomes, but very strong person can do more damage with an axe or hammer and it's handier in a cave or tunnel. They are also strong enough to wear full plate armor so it's like a small tank running up to you hacking your legs of and after that your head...
in fact to be very useful in tunnels and closed spaces, they need weapons that don't need to be swung. Short swords, gladiuses and daggers. Even fists weapons or bladed gauntlets. (look for how Boudica was defeated by the romans, you'll understand) The (pretty great ) analysis of Shad is only correct in open grounds, but to be fair, the analysis of the other races will be done in open ground setup
Your analysis for dwarf weapons (and in your other video about hobbits) makes perfect sense if they were on a battle field. But I cant imagine gimli carrying around a 7-10foot long halberd in the forest, in the mines of moria, on a castle wall etc. The same for hobbits. On a battle field they would be great weapons to overcome their heh short comings but in a small group and going into unknown terrain a great big spear would probably get in the way and be hard to carry. I imagine that they would be holding up the head of the weapon while the end of the spear drags on the ground behind them.
@@IncognitoActivado my assumption of them having very long weapons is based on the fact that they're really small and (assuming im remembering the video correctly) how shad describes them using spears to make up for their lack of reach. Therefore having something like a short spear would basically just put them on par with a human using a sword. So I imagine them using something like a pike. Which were often very long and used to stop cavalry charges, and while the weapon would make up for their lack of reach it would be very hard to carry a pike through dense forest or dwarven mine tunnels. So despite having a large disadvantage carrying short swords I dont see it being practical for them to be carrying long spears on an adventure.
I actually disagree: Dwarves typically live underground - which seem to be a factor not taken into account. Opposite to a crossbow, a bow needs height. (the center of the bow is at shoulder height). This would limit them in all corridors that are 'only' at dwarf-height. Likewise, a polearm would end up a HUGE disadvantage to mobility (perhaps not fighting mobility but "a couple of goblins are attacking 2 corridors down." )
I was going to say more or less the same, extrams0. With the addendum that dwarven weapons usually derive directly from tools they use when not at war. Hammers, axes etc. You could argue they always have a weapon and a tool at hand, and without excessive encumbrance. A counterpoint could be that having a shielded pike formation in a corridor would effectively block it completely against any possible intruders. Come at us, try to break free. Hammers and axes probably wouldn't be nimble enough to hit fast-moving goblins. So both ideas have advantages and disadvantages. Personally I like the "one and done" kind of weapons like hammers and axes, because of the tao of Howard Stark, the best weapon is a weapon you only need to use once.
+Sir Greggory Groda I don't quite agree it would neccecairly be anti-dwarf. Consider that nothing stops an intra-species war like a common enemy. (sure you might not like them drunks of the Heimdall clan, but when the dark elves come knocking at your door, better to have a good sturdy dwarf at your side, amirite ?) But nontheless, their weapons would be designed for the location they live (either defend their home, or conquer new terrain)
Partly true, but we then need to rethink the weapons used by humans in these settings. Humans fighting dwarfs would be axes and mazes, as they are fighting smaler targets bows or crosbows bbecome less efective. Humans against elves would need to be fighted with cavalry as elves has the upper hand in range in most settings. We can't apply our normal medieval logic on humans if we mainly focus on intra-species war.
Another thing to consider regarding dwarven construction is that while they are underground, they are also built to accommodate humans' and elves' heights if not go well overboard to impress with vaulted ceilings in spacious rooms. Mining tunnels though, yeah, tight quarters.
Shadiversity shad, several people have brought up dwarves live in smaller tighter places like caves and mountains, where reach isn't as big a factor and going to be more one on one or small group fighting, you're only looking at this as a battle formation dwarf army, which in battle of the five armies they HAD pole arms, so instead of focusing on big battlefield weaponry, instead what do you think would fit them best in their typical areas of living and fighting, in tunnels and caves and such. And also dwarves tend to deal with armored enemies so war hammers would make more sense then a bladed sword.
+Ninja Tyler actually, as many have answered already, warhammers are WORSE than swords in corridors. Why? Because corridors, as you keep reminding about polearms, fuck your reach, and warhammers need some room to be used, you know, because you have to swing them, while piercing swords are STABBING weapons, which in a corridor can be used perfectly, so no dice there. Now if you say there's enough room to swing that would be ok, but then the spear would have enough room to operate too, meaning it takes the cake, as it's not swung like the rest of polearms nor as long as the pike and still gives a great advantage. Furthermore while dwarves have great metallurgy how great does it need to be to give full plate armor to entire armies? The answer is way too fucking great, and most of their non-dwarven opponents don't use plate armor, so if you're taking into account dwarves being numerous enought to have infighting (Which they are depicting as lacking for the most part in most fantasy universes, you know, because of being a semi-defunct race) they would be distributing partial armor and shields like the romans, meaning swords and spears win, like in roman times, and if they are few enough to have full plate for most of their warriors they aren't fighting themselves and orks/elves both go for light armor meaning swords and spears take the cake again, as the only armored opponent they'll be facing on a regular basis is humans and that's only the knights, not the whole army, making anti-armor weapons, as always, something used by anti-armor troopers, not the whole thing.
NinjaTyler now that I think about it the regular Dwarven swords look like a Roman Gladius and are probably used the same way in the tightly packed Dwarven unites.
I actually left a comment in this very video about how the roman spatha is the one I'd have gone with (it pretty much succeeded the gladius in the late roman empire, and is longer, which taking into account their reduced reach counts for a lot.)
Long pole weapons will be great for the land above, but dwarves were also miners, they lived UNDERground. So, long weapons wouldn't be much use there...
My understanding of fantasy dwarves is that they still have relatively long arms. About the same reach as a human. They're not just humans that have been scaled down. So all of the assumptions based on reach would have to be reconsidered.
There is one weapon combination for dwarves that I am surprised was not considered: SPEAR, SHIELD, and HEAVY ARMOR For dwarves one-handed spear, similar to a Greek Dory, or a Roman Pilum, would be the perfect companion to a large roundshield (similar to the Greek Aspis) and appropriate heavy armor. Such a spear would probably be beefier than the human equivalent; featuring an armor-piercing point and an all metal/metal-shod shank for protection against enemy cutting weapons. The advantages of this kit (plus a one-handed weapon for close combat) for dwarves are as follows: -- A spear of this type offers more reach than nearly any other one-handed weapon, and thus offers the least amount of handicap for a dwarf's shorter (but powerful) thrusting attack. The spear also has lower space requirements to use than most polearms (no more width than a dwarf's shoulders). It is an easy-to-use "hand-and-a half reach weapon" that lends itself well to use with a shield, especially when in formation. -- The above-mentioned spear is also flexible. It can be used under- or over-handed, set vs. charge, wielded one or two-handed, and even can be thrown if necessary. A spear doubles as a hunting weapon or a weapon to be used against dangerous predatory animals. Such a weapon would be useful for a dwarven battlefield soldier, guardsman, or adventurer. This can also be used in places where a polearm would be unwieldy such as in the tunnels/hallways of a dwarven citadel. -- Expect dwarves to use, and openly carry, more battlefield weapons in their day-to-day lives than humans would, because dwarves often have an "under siege" mentality even in times of relative peace ("We must be ready to go into battle at a moment's notice; dwarves are few, but our enemies are many...."). Unlike as with orcs however, this does not foster day-to-day violence; dwarven society has its aggressions directed outwards at its racial enemies, rather than against others of their own kind (dwarves almost never fight with, or steal from, other dwarves). -- Well-armored dwarves in close formation with large roundshields and one-handed spears would be ideal troops to deploy in front of (and on the sides of) troops armed with longer-reach polearms and crossbows to better protect these shield-less, but still well-armored soldiers from direct attack by enemy missile fire, cavalry charge, or swarming attack by light infantry. This would turn a determined square of dwarves (and what dwarves aren't determined...?) into a brutally effective enemy-crushing machine. -- The above-mentioned tactics would be practical for a shield wall, a phalanx, or even in Roman maniple-type formations. Probably any group of well-trained dwarves could utilize all of these formations on command of their leaders. Dwarves typically live longer than humans, and can have longer military careers. They have more time to train, keep better records, and have a more cohesive society overall). -- The accompanying Aspis-type shield offers a higher degree of protection to dwarf than for a human, given its shape and the short, broad bodies of dwarves. An Aspis also doubles as a personal battering ram and close combat weapon when used offensively. This shield is even more practical for dwarves than it was for the real-life Greek Hoplites. -- Good heavy armor is another advantage that dwarves typically have, because they normally have the best non-magical technology of any fantasy race. The impetus for developing good heavy armor is dwarven anatomy; tough but slower-moving dwarves fight best in the "prolonged combat stand and swing mode", rather than the "hit, dodge, and run" mode. -- Expect dwarven armor to be more protective than anyone else's weight per weight, regardless of type. They will have good full plate when everyone else is struggling to make quality chain, and forging even decent plate mail might be a real stretch.... This technology advantage probably also includes areas outside of metalwork and mining. Expect at least some dwarves to be engineers of other types.... -- In addition to the heavy full plate armor that most dwarves would use when defending their citadels and fighting on an open battlefield, expect them to have very high-quality medium-weight armor (roughly from chainmail thru scale mail, to lorica segmentata) for combat in a broken-field environment. These intermediate armor types would also be attractive to dwarven adventurers. -- Expect typical dwarven work clothes to be equal to leather armor or gambeson for protection. This is appropriate for those who do mining, metalwork, or labor outside of the citadel. Also expect any dwarven citadel to have lightly armed, and lightly-armored, highly-trained "special forces" infantry to do battle in a "wild" underground environment. These troops would be the equivalent of rangers on the surface, and might be referred to as "scouts", "cavers", or even "tunnel-rats." Not every dwarf will go into battle as a "walking tank" every time. -- For dwarves wielding spear-and-shield as their primary weapon combination, there is some latitude regarding what secondary one-handed weapon could be used. For this, I would favor two weapons; to allow the dwarven soldier to choose between speed and reach vs. power. -- The first weapon would be a one-handed cut-and-thrust sword. Cutting attacks are especially good for fighting opponents using “rat pack” tactics (large numbers of expendable troops with light armor and inferior weapons), and thrusting is important when facing well-armored opponents whose protection negates attacks with the sword’s edge. A distal taper with a narrow armor-piercing point is highly recommended for any dwarven sword). A Greek Xyphos or a Roman Gladius Hispaniensis would work fine for close work (tight formation/confined spaces underground); whereas an arming sword/knightly sword or a falchion/messer have more reach, and would be better for fighting in open formation/broken terrain. Any of these weapons work fine with a shield. -- The second weapon would be a so-called “traditional dwarven headed weapon”: a one-handed battle ax, war hammer, or military pick (also expect two-headed combination weapons of any of these types). These weapons are useful at close range as high-damage cutting, bludgeoning, and piercing armor-defeating weapons that can also hook limbs, shields, and weapons. Any of these weapons also work fine with a shield. Expect dwarves to use teamwork tactics (the dwarf with the ax hooks the opponent’s shield and pulls it down, while another dwarf with a spear or sword scores the killing thrust…). Any thoughts?
In the Forgotten Realms/ Icewind Dale trilogy by RA Salvatore, there is a short dialog between Drizzt DoUrden and Bruneor Battlehammer where Drizzt asks Bruneor why he wields an axe and how the dwarven folk consider it preferable over swords or spears and Bruneors response is epic: Elf, if'n me people ran around with swords and spears a' swingin' an pokin with em in the tunnels we'd have been a long ago forgotten race. But suren our picks, hammers and axes always layin' about, none of our bones litter those tunnels. Drizzt: Ahh makes good sense
It's worth considering that the traditional enemies of dwarves were also similarly small: being goblins. So dwarves wouldn't really be at any reach disadvantage there. Or very large things like ogres and trolls, wherein they relied on being short to run about beneath their feet, between their legs, and then have a heavy weapon to chop knees and tendons and bring them down.
@@SeismicHammer I believe that would be the case of principles, because Drow as in EVIL-NOT-DRIZZT-STYLE Drow are arrogant, veeeeery arrogant and using a weapon associated with some filthy bunch of drunken midgets such as dwatfs or better yet Duergar (which most of the time are slaves to the Drow) and fanatical believe in their superiority in every aspect, would make it a big no-no.
Was watching this and thinking of that, he entirely forgets to address terrain. It's also notable that other "underground" races tend to use crossbows, famously the drow. I suspect its because you can easily carry one around loaded for a prolonged period of time so its handy for guard duty and the like. Also even less room in caves and tunnels for bows.
they live in massive cave complexes. i feel like they would change their equipment depending on where they are at the time. i think all dwarves can expect to be in tight caves where the ability to swing weapons and move bows around is slightly problematic. in addition the kind of monsters that dwarves have to fight are more heavy armored and resistant to damage than those outside caves. this is why they would probably carry short spears, shields, and weapons that do lots of damage with a short reach like axes, hammers, and pickaxes.
ArchFiendAF I mean... can you really say that orcs and goblins are always heavily armored though? I suppose if they came upon a troll they might need an axe, but to kill an orc? I think a sword would do just fine. Unless you're talking about dwarves fighting other dwarves. In which case it actually makes loads of sense, considering dwarves generally have incredibly good armor. In fact, I propose that dwarves primarily use axes and hammers due to the dwarves developing them as useful tools to kill other dwarves. I also think that since they are a particularly industrious people, it's likely they place some cultural importance on hammers and axes that tiger cultures may not.
I think that Dwarves can hold their breath for quite long and are also not that stupid to really use the Flamethrowers in situations where they would consume all the oxygen immediatley, considering that they live in their caves and tunnels for thousands of years with constant technological progress....
@brendan bush. i dont actually consider orcs and goblins monsters, even trolls are just giants and mostly humanoid. i'm talking about creatures which burrow through solid rock with scales or plates covering their bodies several inches thick made from hard bone, stone, or even metal. worse case they are creatures of rock element in nature and are completely moving stone to the core.
Here are my thoughts on the matter: 1. In every setting that tries to be at least mildly realistic, much of the fights of dwarves would be against other dwarves. That means that the reach would be about even on both sides, but it also means that the warfare would take place in the dwarves home territory, which is in most fantasy worlds in underground tunnels and halls. In CQC you'll probably want a small weapon, that doesn't need too much space to use like a short sword or a shortl spear. On the other hand dwarves are usually heavily armoured, so they would be trained with weapons against armour like maces and hammers, crossbows and thin pointed spears or swords. 2. The dwarves are usually portraited as rather defensive with heavy fortifications at the entrances to their tunnels. They usually don't fight wars of aggression or go campaigning (at least I've seldom heard of that). Thus their battles would largely be sieges with them in the defending position. Crossbows - especially the heavy ones are said to have exceeded in siege warfare. Furthermore axes and hammers would be quite fitting for this kind of warfare as in sieges there is a lot of woodwork and construction to be done. 3. If the dwarves were to field a militia instead of a standing army, axes and hammers probably be quite a good idea as in many settings the dwarves are to a large degree miners, smiths and masons - all of which are very familiar with hammers and axe-like tools (pickaxes e.a.). 4. Dwarves equipped with axes and hammers could be a quite deadly force, if they could get in close enough, as the rather long weapons of their opponents would then be rather hindring. With shield like the roman scutum (adjusted to their size of course) they could for example tortoise in close, then brake the formation and charge in. Essentially the good old roman heavily armoured shock infantry. The problem I see, if you focus too much on the lack of reach, is that with their inherent shortness, they probably couldn't make up the reach as when the dwarves were known to get long weapons, the other races would probably think: 'Why don't we make longer weapons, too, so we'd still have the longer reach?" Instead of trying to compensate for their weaknesses which they probably never completely can, why not try to push their strengths, which are usually endurance, unmovability, strength, forging and mechanics. So I would in a field army make them form a shield wall with large shields and hammers or estocs in the first rank, and halberds or pikes in the second rank. Behind that I'd position the crossbowmen and a lot of war-engines. The tactic shoot them as they come to you and when the enemy's close enough charge in close and hack 'em to bits. As attacking force I'd probably let them build a big war-engine, shoot into the enemy's camp, and make them come to you. If this doesn't work, tortoise in, then charge.
Dwarves aren't Humans, they aren't as territorial as we are, have no nations and rarely if ever fight other Dwarves for real {sport is a different matter}. Their main enemies are Goblins, Orcs + Kobolds which are even smaller than Goblins. The supposed enmity with Elves is more a mild dislike over cultural differences than any real hatred that would lead to war - The two races rarely bother each other and when they do tend to trade quite easily as both have something the other needs. Dwarves and Elves in most fantasy worlds tend to be an order of magnitude rarer than Humanity or Goblinoids - Dwarves are a long lived race with correspondingly lower reproductive rates {they average 350 years old}. Elves even longer {In Tolkien basically Immortal}. Now you could have evil Human civilizations attack the Dwarves and wipe them out because that's what would most likely happen but the chances are Human civilizations near to Dwarven civilizations will be quite happy to trade with said Dwarves rather than fight them and again it's the Goblinoids and other underground tunneling creatures that Dwarves are most likely to end up in combat situations against.
Oh and yes I know about the Dark Dwarves {Duergar and Derro} but they are even rarer than your standard Dwarf and tend to live much deeper underground - Actual Wars between Dwarves and Duergar/Derro are much much rarer than the regular fights with Goblinoids and Kobolds.
I've never heard of a fantasy setting where Dwarves are are less annoying or rude to Dwarves than any other race. Given their insane antagonism and passion for grudges I would say that they would be at war with anyone proximate to their location. So yes, Dwarves would have to fight Dwarves all of the time.
True, Wolf, but I have a feeling the antagonism and bantering between them ends more with a full on brawl between the dwarves involved, which is then ended with them going together to the nearest pub and boozing up. Only for a mottly gathering of a few elves, a human, two gnomes and possibly a bard, to stumble into said tavern and get a solid thrashing, because the party upset the DM ...not that I've done this to a party.
I don't know how many times i have come back to the dwarf videos. But, it just feels so good to see them again. I hope for more dwarf videos in the future.
I think that this video was made in excellent form when compared to the real world's history of war and war technology. But it is dubious in relation to... basic knowledge of muscular physiology and its effects on weight moving abilities. The three primary things to take into consideration involving Dwarf physiology are their lever lengths, body proportions, and muscle belly size. In body building and power lifting the best lifts for the bench involve folk with thick chests and short arms, enabling their muscle levers to exert much greater force in proportion to their available muscle fiber recruitment in comparison to a person with longer arms. The leg movements are the same- men with wide hips, short torso and leg proportions are able to squat and deadlift more. These anatomical proportions match dwarfish physiology in every canon. And, the thickness of their muscle-belly attachment sites also is reliably long in all available art of any dwarf, ever- so they're physiologically perfect for moving heavy objects. Also, they aren't human beings- with their diets that would kill a man, their muscular fibers are most likely not at all built the way human fibers are. For example, take notice of chimpanzees. They are very similar to humans but have vastly more efficient power-to-muscle-fiber ratio. This is just conjecture but it would add to their already obscene racial advantage in wielding unwieldy weaponry. Ultimately this gives Dwarfs the ability to wield weapons that no other species can- not even buff body builder looking half orks. The Dwarfish body is physiologically perfect for generating momentum out of obscene weights. This means that the Dwarfs are literally the only race capable of realistically wielding fantasy style huge war-axes and war-hammers with any degree of effectiveness. I'm absolutely sure that the war axes of typical artistic renditions would kill a man in full plate armor if it struck him squarely in the chest. Dwarfs do not need polearm, because that would put their gargantuan advantage of 100% debuff to opponents' armor out of the picture. Putting the heavy heads of their axes or hammers on a long pole would ruin the fulcrum leverage their small arms can generate with shorter-hafted weapons. The sacrifice of reach is negligible in the extreme as well- their frames enable them to move with ease in stupid heavy armor as they close with their foes. Thus, their stereotypical settup is, perhaps accidentally, optimized for their anatomy.
Trequor, have you ever sent in a term paper, or even exam, with that few words on it? No? Your hyperbole just makes you look incredibly lazy and unfocused.
Your point is well worded and illustrates one of my thought lines while watching this video exactly. Similarly the effectiveness of a polearm in the hands of a dwarf would be questionable in terms of offence both due to the limited arc of movement due to a lower height and the overall extension of the arms allowing for better leverage and motion of such a long weapon.
I think dwarves would use a mix of weapons, since not every one of them can probably afford quality full plate armour. Their militia, then, would benefit from using halberds in formation and crossbows, to pin the enemy in place, protect the flanks, and counter an occasional big monster, while their professional armoured heavy infantry with shields, axes (if going against armoured opponents) and falchions (if not) moves in for the kill. It's how they play in the majority of strategies, at least.
Very important caveat. The majority of dwarven combat is supposedly going on in short, narrow, tight and low rooved passageways. Not exactly an area conducive for carrying poleaxes. Axes and crossbows, on the otherhand? Perfect. And the reason you regularly see maces and axes over swords? Armour penetration. Swords are great, but they have nothing in terms of armour penetration when compared to the likes of axes, hammers, or maces. Considering how heavily armoured dwarves are, and how much extra protection a shield affords them, swords would be significantly less useful in dwarf on dwarf fights. or dwarf on heavily armoured orc fights... maybe not against lightly armoured goblins. but hey, that's what sidearms are for.
if the passageway is narrow enough to prevent you from dodging a spear, it's likely to be prohibitively narrow/low rooved to the point where spears are going to be annoying to carry around. can't carry them upright because of low rooves and potentially not even able to turn around due to narrow corridors. obviously this isn't going to be the case in large caverns, but a) then it's not going to be any harder to dodge a spear anyway. and b) relying on a weapon that reduces maneuverability reduces overall strategical flexibility. and again, the reason for axes, maces, or hammers over swords is that swords are terrible at penetrating heavy armour. This is going to compounded when fighting shielded opponents in situations where mobility is impeded... such as tunnels/caverns. axes and hammers are much more effective against shields than swords are. The primary reason for swords' prevalence, even in real life history, has little to do with their combat effectiveness and more to do with their ease of carry and ability to wear as side arms. Realistically, most dwarves with heavy axes, hammers, maces, or even spears, are also going to wear a short sword as a backup. especially for when fighting in spaces that are prohibitively narrow. (take Spartans' and other ancient greeks' use of both the dory and xiphos as an example)
radred609 Hammers and maces don't penetrate armour, they squash it. And power is highly dependent on acceleration and distance, a dwarf has no room to get momentum going in any kind of swingy weapon (axes are even worse). A good thrusting sword would do very well for a dwarf who lost his polearm
trequor , if you're arguing that warhammers and maces don't technically count as having good armour penetration because they're technically blunt weapons you're missing the point harder than a cave troll in a pillow factory. most of these weapons take considerably less room to use than a long sword (as a relatively arbitrary example), especially considering how much extra leverage you get from having a long handle as opposed to the shorter sword handle. And, as i said earlier, having a short sword as a side arm is to be expected anyway. regardless of primary weapon of choice. the primary issue with spears and polearms isn't that they're bad weapons, it's that they further limit overall maneuverability in an environment that is already limiting to maneuverability. (and even more so if the cave/tunnel roof is low)
radred609 I disagree, a good thrusting sword or small spear takes much less room to use than a swingy mace. It matter how much room to the side or roof you have with those weapons. All you need is the direction of the enemy to stab. Maces and axes require room to move and swing and to be energy efficient you have to keep the momentum up. Difficult to do in close quarters.
In the battle of the five armies they actually used shields and polarms as you can see here: vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/edain-mod/images/3/3b/Iron_Hills_Phalanx.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160807191936
schmid1.0 I remember that battle, dwarves forming a battle line of shields, looking amazing. I expected elves to shower enemies with arrows....instead they use dwarves as protection to, quite literaly, jump into battle. I was disappointed.
+Robbedem The issues with that are twofold: - Firstly, this was supposed to be the elves actually choosing to help the dwarves, instead of buggering off again. - Second, they basically screwed themselves over in the process - since they could have easily stood behind the dwarves and rained arrows into the orcs.
we just gonna ignore cultural impact? sure i agree that axes dont make much sense but swords? in a largely subterranean race? weapons of self defense would be hammers, picks, and shields owing to their cultural focus on mining and smithing. weapons of warfare would be shields, crossbows, and the spear family because thats what works in tight tunnel systems. shield/spear combo would be too powerful a weapon system for a short stocky people fighting 95% of the time in tunnels to ignore.
By that logic Dwarves should have picks and the sort of sharpened shovels carried by the Spetsnaz. In tight mining tunnels a spear makes no sense at all. In a tunnel two dwarves could form up with a shield like a Scutum and with short powerful jabs from sharpened shovels and picks they would be an impenetrable meat grinder.
James Domec the would probably have a type of shovel spear Something that could do both But we are all assuming that their weapons would be the same as what’s useful. They would also have the have things to hunt and farm They would probably eat moles and shrews which tunnel. So they probably wouldn’t have any kind of ranged attack at all besides maybe nets They are far more likely to spear fish With the shovel spear So what I am saying so I really like your shovel spear idea
And he ignores they live in caves, where reach weapons will be hard to use due to short ceilings. There's a reason Vietnam Tunnel Rats preferred pistols over rifles. Rifles were harder to use in tight quarters.
2:13 in fantasy books of the Inheritance Cycle by C. Paolini (Eragon, Eldest, Brigingr and Inheritance, strongly recommended) dwarves made small bows out of Urgals (creatures inspired by orcs) horns.
Heavy weapons like axes and hammers require less leverage to use effectively, as the pressure per square inch on impact is huge no matter what, but thin finesse weapons like spears and swords require more leverage (longer arms) to control, especially when you involve parrying and readjusting the weapon in mid-swing. A human with long arms is going to be better at fencing with a light/finesse weapon (which is why men are better at fencing than women), so a dwarf with short arms is better off doubling down on a simple, unparryable weapon like a hammer and to rely on unstoppable offense.
You're forgetting that the choice of weapon is also influenced by the living environment and available resources. You cannot use bows effectively underground and access to wood is more difficult than it would be for elves, that poses issues if only in terms of ammunition. That being said, as a dwarf fan, i enjoyed the video very much ^^.
According to Dwarf Fortress there is a type of underground crop called a "pig tail" (not the same as something from an actual pig). It can be used to make thread or ale. If the town is not under siege, then woodcutters can be sent up to the surface; any complaints about aboveground work can be ignored. This wood will be used to make stuff *before* the goblins arrive to besiege the town. Stone is of course much preferred to make anything; the decision on which material to use for what is made by the foredwarf.
Are you forgetting the fact that due to their typical metalworking trade Dwarves carry hammers as tools? I know a smith hammer and a war hammer aren't the same thing. Perhaps they are traditionally or culturally attached to them. It could even enable a Dwarf to evade some Mickey Mouse no-weapons law. "Them's just me tools, mate."
I still love the Dwarfs of Total war: Warhammer. The Orcs are coming with their massive army, shoot them into the ground with cannons. Elves are coming with their flying creatures, make the cannons ready. The norscas launch an attack with Mammoths, shoot them down with cannons. Same for the humans and Vampire. So you can see, Dwarfs are my favorite Fantasy creatures. But yeah, I agree on what you have wrote.
Only standard armor. Enchanted armor or dwarven made armor is usually said to be quite sturdy. Imagine not a chainmail but a full plate made from Adamantium. Good luck getting through that easily.
Why make a suit of adamantium armor when you could out a unit with adamantium spears that easily penetrate enemy armor? Edit: We mean Adamantine. Adamantium is Marvel territory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamant Marvel hardly came up with Adamantium, they just defined the properties of their Adamantium to fit their narrative, but it is basically the same very hard, almost indestructible substance as it is in many other settings. The 40k setting also uses the word Adamantium, mainly used in areas with high mechanical stress or for superior protection as in the Tactical Dreadnought armour aka Terminator armour. Anyway, you should already know from steel weapons and steel armor why you would want Adamantium/Adamantine/Adamant armor, because to protect from one metal you need a metal of very similar properties to do that. Lead armor, for example, even if we could ignore its weight, would not be very good against steel weapons. So, only Adamatium armor will protect against Adamantium spear tips and since we can't rule out the possibility of inter-dwarvish warfare, this might very well be a possibility. However, just as with full plate armor being only a thing for the richer and more powerful people in the medieval ages, armor made from Adamantium might only be a thing for the richer dwarves, whereas Adamatium spearheads or weaponheads might be a thing that most dwarves could afford or even need to afford. Usually, the only thing in most settings keeping armies from being clad in full Adamatium armor is its implied rareness and difficulty of processing and manufacture, but that still wouldn't make Adamatium armor impossible for those that can afford the cost.
Yaaaay! I'll watch every single one of them! An remember the metatro- Oh no, taht's for another channel....Farewell? I don't know if you have an "official outro"
in D&D almost every dwarf had spend some time in mining, this is essential also the fight in long unfinished halls or tunnels (with enemies like gnomes, trolls, orcs, Spiders....) some of their enemies are tall with an extrem range, for a dwarf is it very important to Keep them distant with a long pike, but when the enemy dodges the pike, the only way to survive is to come ,protected by a shield, so Close as possible to Smash legs knees feet with a small but strong weapon=axes, hammer,mace weapons they really know to handle (weapons that resemble their tools) the halbert is a stupid weapon for tunnel warfare
Not sure that the archery/crossbow points make sense. If you're storing the same amount of energy by pulling a draw a shorter distance then you need more strength. If both humans and dwarfs can exert X (Since he says equivilant strength) Newtons, and it takes X Newtons to draw a human sized crossbow over 0.5M and store Y energy while a dwarven crossbow is, say 0.3M, then it'd be impossible to get the same stored energy. X and Y can't be equal if the draw length is shorter.
It works for either bow or crossbows. I don't know much about crossbow engineering. My point is, he was saying that because dwarvs were shorter, they would have a shorter draw length, due to shorter weapons and with equal strength they could use crossbows/bows more effective. I was saying that the physics don't add up.
"If you're storing the same amount of energy by pulling a draw a shorter distance then you need more strength." But you _are_ using more strength, relatively speaking. You're using the equivalent of 0.5m of drawing energy (i.e. "X Newtons") over just 0.3m, meaning you're using more energy per metre drawing the shorter bow. This is how they can maintain equivalent potential energy at full draw. His argument was that dwarves could use material that stores more energy over a shorter draw length (e.g. spring steel). It would take the same strength to draw a spring steel short bow over 0.3m as it would a yew longbow over 0.5m (hypothetically speaking of course).
You're missing something: Crossbows are made of different material, at least at the height of their use. It is a known historical fact that a spring steel crossbow can store more maximum energy than a wooden or composite bow. So if the longbow stores X newtons at full draw, while the crossbow stores X + Y at full draw, then it will store X at less than full draw. Later crossbow designs had multiple notches for the string. A partial draw was used for lower power rapid fire-usually against lighter infantry at shorter range. Full draw was for penetrating armor, longer range, or throwing a solid iron bolt instead of an iron-tipped wooden bolt. However Shad is also missing something: steel crossbows were usually drawn with more muscles-the back and legs in addition to the arms, that's what the stirrup was for. Now, dwarves are commonly known for mechanical expertise. They might well employ some sort of low-power repeating crossbow like the Chu-no-ku. Oh, wait... Varric Tethras' Bianca from Dragon Age!
I think Cornered Fox said the same as this, but anyway That would be true, but it is assumed that humans and drarves have the same strength. So it's impossible to be "Using more strength". It would take more strength to draw it. Just the same amount of energy. Try carrying a 10KG rock over a kilometer. You could do it. Now try carrying a 10Tonne rock over a meter. Same amount of energy, but you'd probably lack the strength.
Shad dwarves while smaller would be closer to goblins in the fact that they’re less likely to be found in open areas or even on the surface. Dwarves prior to Smaug and the lonely mountain would have been found in mines and caves/below ground. Dwarves would have used the shorter weapons like axes and short swords to allow for movement within the mines. This would have meant you would be correct on the short bows as well but axes and hammers would be perfectly valid and readily available in the mine/blacksmithing area as well as likely standard issue items for any dwarf that would be mining or setting up timbers.
The problem with some of the weapons suggested is they assume being out in the open. Dwarves, at least according to Dungeons & Dragons lore, which is derived from Tolkein, historically live underground, either in hillside or in the mountains. Dwarves are known for mining ores and using that to make weapons. The issue is that underground areas don't always give you a lot of room to work with for swinging your weapon. Hammers make sense in that they grow out of a weapon they commonly already use - dwarven weaponsmiths and armorsmiths are highly sought after, and so converting it into a weapon of war is a natural extension. Axes somewhat act the same way but slice and slash rather than bash, good for when you're trying to get through flesh, like that of an orc. As for the crossbow vs standard bow argument, bows work with archery, which means you actually aim higher and it arcs toward your target (thus the term "archery"), whereas crossbows are more similar to firearms: a relatively straight horizontal path towards its target. Low ceilings in mines make crossbows much more useful. So all in all, based simply on the build of the character, I'd agree with the suggestions, but you have to take environmental factors into account as well.
Personally, as a Swedish person whom's grossly studied about mythology, I have dwarves be a bit more rare in my settings. They look a lot more like they would in ancient mythology (Something closer to a mix between human and goblin.) than Tolekin's work.
Sure, I can understand that. In earlier versions of the game (like 1st Edition AD&D), there was a good mix of fantasy such as Tolkein mixed in with what we got from various mythologies - kobolds and ogres, for example. The only memory I have of what a Dwarf was like at all outside Tolkein was a creature that was known for smithing, specifically weaponsmithing and armorsmithing.
Dwarves also tend to be technologically superior in some settings, with some portrayals having complicated machinery and even steam or combustion engines.
Unless Gnomes also exist in that setting, them they get all the advanced clockwork stuff while dwarfs are just mason's and skilled blacksmiths; good at shaping the metal, less so at putting complex pieces together.
In the game Myth, the dwarf's weapons of choice are actually explosive powders, either in the form of placed satchels or thrown as Molotov cocktails. Explosives have many applications in mining and digging, trades dwarves are famously skilled in, and their knowledge of metallurgy gives them the knowledge to make such things. This is not without it's problems, as dwarves in that game are practically synonymous with friendly fire and can just as easily blow up allies as well as enemies, but I figure it is still worth mentioning as a potentially useful option that would likely exist within the dwarven arsenal.
Why? I can hear him perfectly clearly and I was listening to this video from halfway across the room on a crappy cheap laptop from Argos. Get your ears syringed.
The strange part on this one is, he uses a clip-on mic in some videos (like "Why character classes in RPGs are stupid"). Obviously these videos sound way better, so it is not even the lack of a mic, he just does not use it on some videos for whatever reason.
On the contrary, if you're wearing plate armour, the last thing you want to do is end up in a grapple. That'd just greatly increase the chance that the enemy will be able to bypass your armour by sticking a dagger into a weak point.
Someone with a Dwarf's mass and center of gravity would be nightmarish to have to wrestle. You couldn't stick him with a dagger until he figured out how to get your hand out of your mouth.
Grappling isn't a one-dimensional tug-of-war where one is in control and the other isn't. Also, if you don't end up in a grapple in the first place, you can't lose it. If you're the more heavily armoured one, you have everything to gain from keeping the fight at a distance, making it harder for either one of you to strike weak points.
Note that most of the dwarves you're showing in your pictures actually have human-sized arms and torsos (or at least, comic-book muscular arms and torsos) - ie, their arms reach pretty much down to their knees when they're in "dramatic pose" mode, and in mid-to-upper thigh when standing upright. It's just their legs that are shorter. As such, while I think your points are well-made, the actual dwarves you are describing aren't the ones that you're showing - those guys have just as much reach as an adult human - it's just lower to the ground.
to be completely fair, what he is showing in the pictures most of the time is - Slayers. Out of warhammer fantasy. Slayers are like any other dwarf except that they've taken an oath to die in battle, and seek greater and greater challenges. Which means you'd eventually find them single handedly off-ing giants as well as dragons. What you need to keep in mind here is that the dwarves in warhammer fantasy are INSANELY strong compared to humans. Which in turn would mean that if they use shorter weapons as 1-h axes for instance they'd be cleaving full plate armored knights in half. But still have the speed/agility to have a high rate of strikes. But they are still smaller with shorter reach than the humans of that setting. Just WAY bulkier.
For a one handed weapon I would of said a flail. Gives them extended reach and with the equivalent strength of a human and shorter swing length could be used to devastating effectiveness. Especially when swung while being behind shield
No, they are not used realistically. They are realistically looking, but not used. Not to mention that swords in game are longswords, even those that are supposed to be one-handed or greatswords.
noise reduction surfaces, definitely worth investing in (even if it's a couple of spare curtains/towels against the non camera facing walls). That's a lot of sharpness and echo in the audio.
Before I watch the video: I'm gonna say spears, halberds, polaxes, and other polarms. Purely because their short stature dictates a lack of reach in combat - meaning they'd probably take up weapons that aim to counter that disadvantage.
Now I'm watching it: Their draw length for bows isn't gonna be amazing, but their strength would allow for higher poundage bows - they'd be able to draw a bow maybe two or three times the weight of a human, so offsetting the low draw distance of their stocky builds. Basically, I imagine their bows to have the draw weight of a crossbow, but with the same draw length - essentially taking a crossbow, but making it an ordinary bow.
"Perfect weapons for Dwarves" - Fuckin' called it! I absolutely agree. Though, I'd add - a spear and shield for a human might cover say... 70% of their body. For a dwarf, the same sized shield would cover 100% of their body. Give a Dwarf a Roman Scutum and a spear, and the Scutum is covering their ENTIRE body, so if they use a spear as a Roman would use a Gladius or Spartha (Thrusting from behind the shield.) it makes up for the lack of reach, whilst protecting them... basically completely.
Only problem I can see is - a Roman would hold the Gladius behind the shield, so as to cover the direction he's gonna thrust it - but if you've got a spear, even a human is gonna have to hold it outside of the shield. For a dwarf, this is worse, it makes it easy for the enemy to see where you're attacking, and they could EASILY parry it. I mean, you can easily hold a gladius behind a scutum, and thrust from that position whilst your opponents can't see the blade, but with shorter arms, Dwarves couldn't do that.
Sanguis Dominus However! Dwarves are often depicted as wearing heavy armor, and living underground. Thus should dwarves ever fight each other, they would likely field weapons that are more effective against armor- warhammers and maces and such. Also, in the cramped confines of tunnels, bows would likely be less effective than crossbows, due to their arc of fire and overall less compact design. Also since even basic dwarf infantry seems to be able to wear mail and a lot of them wear straight up plate armor, it's not stretching the imagination to think that, instead of using spears and halberds and such to make up for their lack of reach (though they might still utilize those in formations), they would simply use their heavy armor to nullify their reach disadvantage and go to work with hammer, axe, and pick.
A polearm or a spear would suit a dwarf in their tunnels far better than axes yes. Moreover, their usually tanned complexions and big hair and beard doesn't make much sense for a race living primarily underground, if you look at why we have hair in the first place evolutionary, and they would likely have rather pallid, sickly skins, what with no sunlight. And also miners in tunnels, living off likely mushrooms and such underground, blind cave fish and such, you'd probably end up with a rather wiry kind of creature. The low level of light in there would probably alter both their eyes and their ears to follow suit, sort of in the evolutionary direction of a bat, hairless, pale with spears... oh look, we made a goblin. Which are also appropriately a lot closer to the original myths of dwarves from Scandinavia that what Tolkien turned them into...
Sacremas I think that the strength aspect comes mainly from dwarves being skilled manufacturers. As for skin tone, it always depends on the character and most artworks depict certain ideas. Also dwarves would probably be quite the traders to obtain more and higher quality food and thus venture outside. (f.e. The hidden entrance to Moria with elvish inscription as well as dialogue point to that, where Tolkien's concerned). Goblins are an entirely different species in the LoTR universe so the last argument is kind of redundant and they mostly are what you described them as
Roxanne Stride I am talking about a realistic fashion of what a dwarf would end up as, not races and such. If we take D&D you have the Duergar race, an evil drow style offshoot of dwarves that are a lot like what I described, and also much closer to pre-Tolkien depictions of dwarves. The pronounciation of their name is also very close to Dverg, which is Norwegian for dwarf, perhaps not coincidentally.
Roxanne Stride also even with their trade most dwarves would spend the majority of their time in their cavern homes, receiving very little sunlight over their lives. Given traditional animosity of elves, humans and dwarves it is unlikely that trade would cover the majority of their foodstuffs either. And no, it depends little on the artist and the like, find any color depiction of a regular dwarf post Tolkien, and they will if not be elaborately bearded (few exceptions, like Varric in Dragon Age) at least have a very healthy skin tone, if not a full on tan, which you would not have if you (and a hundred generations usually as well) spent your whole life indoors under maybe torchlight
Sacremas I acknowledge your arguments but maybe we could find common ground by saying that it depends on the clan of dwarf and their traditions. It would rule out neither. The Eddas and the mythology they create are often overshadowed by Tolkien but the development has to be blamed on culture. The stories are simply not as accessible as LoTR- even nowadays finding an entire Edda in a language you are confident enough in is complicated and a lot gets lost in translation. ...trying to find my way back into the original argument (sorry about that, cellphones be damned). I found a lot of artwork that took realistic skin tones into consideration. As for beards/hair: it depends on how the universe is set up, in the end. Did they come into existence via a god and lived beneath the rocks ever since? or is there some nomadic history behind that. But maybe that is just my personal take on that. Tolkien did not try to create a new perfect dwarf stereotype, he simply developed a different setting. We should be glad that Gimli is the go to and not Grimms' version however kid appropriate they are
In Middle-earth, unlike in most other fantasy settings, we have to bear in mind that the Dwarves wouldn't usually have a real height or reach disadvantage: they'd be mostly facing Orcs, the bulk of whom weren't much taller than them, if at all. Now the Uruks would be a problem - the Moria Orcs were led by tall Uruks as big as a Man and what not. But if memory serves, only Saruma's Uruks walked straight as a Man on top of being just as tall. Other Uruks, including Azog, Bolg, Grishnakh and others, had ape-like stances that reduced their height advantage. While Tolkien did make axes the quintessential Dwarvish weapon, he described Dáin's folk as using two-handed mattocks (so essentially a form of pollaxe), shields, and short swords as side-arms. Anyway, great video!
Late to the party (just watched video) however i would like to add my half penny to this:). So i agree with pikes or halberds for dwarves and infact believe in LOTR battle of five armies they show dwarves with these. Now onto axes and war hammers. I believe they are infact good choices for dwarves. A dwarf is strong and sturdy yet short with a reach disadvantage. In close combat it would be far more advantages to close the distance putting his longer armed foe at the disadvantage with a short well armored opponet within thier guard. As mentioned dwarves are excellent metal workers with amazing armor. Inside right next to anything taller puts that opponent in a hard pressed position while the dwarf with an axe or hammer can repeatedly land blows extremely difficult to defend againts on legs, hips, lower torso. So a dwarf would want to close the distance using his small sturdy and tanky self with quick burst of speed to get inside the guard and pummel the opponents legs with powerful blows. The axe and warhammer actually suit a dwarf very well. If he uses a sword and tries to keep distance then he will remain at a disadvantage since his opponent can mantain a longer distance easily. For long distance pikes, halbreds, spears, crossbows, bows are great, however at close quarters i believe dwarves would want to close the distance with thier armor and shield and use a weapon that can deliver knee and hip debilitating blows as quick as possible.
a dwarve would be an op phalanx unit. if they have the same shields the greek states had. hence they would have huge full body coverage shield and long pikes.
Swazi Hitler 27 The idea of a Dwarf wielding a rapier just feels... wrong, it's too undwarfy (Talking about fantasy dwarfs, if you're a person who has dwarfism use whatever you want)
They would have problems carrying a rapier on the belt even when alone let alone in a tight phalanx formation, so no way they'd use them as side weapons.
I wpuld assume dwarves would almost always start with a charging attack and wpuld be extreemly proficient at parying... They would get in your space and you would not not beable to step back fast enough to take a second swing
good video. you missed a point, culture, culture could why one race favors a type of weapon of another. and an ax is something they would use in a mine. i looking forward to seeing the next video.
work = force * distance If 'strength' directly determines draw force, a long-armed human will charge a human-sized maximum-weight bow with more potential energy than a short-armed equal-strength dwarf can charge a dwarf-sized equal-weight bow. If the dwarf could, by awkward calisthenics, fully draw the human-sized bow, then surely by the same calisthenics the human could draw an ogre-sized bow. The human always retains an advantage in bow energy equal to the ratio of arm lengths. If 'strength' determines muscle force, draw force will depend on mechanical advantage. A short arm has more mechanical advantage at the hand than an equally 'strong' long arm. The leverage penalty is proportional to arm length, thus exactly cancels the draw-distance advantage. In this case, a dwarf will deliver more draw force but over a smaller distance, and charge his smaller higher-weight bow to equal potential as the human charges his larger lower-weight bow. The second case is probably the best fit for dwarves. For equivalent muscle biology, force is proportional to muscle cross sectional area. If dwarves have shorter limbs of equal diameter to humans, then they have equal muscle cross section and equal muscle force, and equal peak bow energy. The first case perhaps describes hobbits: shorter limbs of smaller diameter than humans, thus smaller cross section and smaller muscle force. If hobbits are exactly proportional to humans, the situation for them is actually worse: muscle cross section varies as the _square_ of the diameter. So an exact half-sized halfling would have twice the mechanical advantage, but only one quarter the muscle force. They deliver half the draw force to half the draw distance, thus can produce only one quarter of human or dwarf peak bow energy.
you've made some valid points on most choices. but I'm going to have to disagree with you on the long sword. i say this purely because I don't think dwarves could draw a good sized long sword, or any side arm with a distinct reach advantage for that matter, from the sheath. I'd go more towards a dagger or a short sword. for them. just imagine how annoying it would be to have to fight those little guys in close proximity .
Then they have to have the leverage and highcenter of gravity to make the best use of the cuts and strokes a long-sword can do. Let alone any up-close fencing is going to be tough for the guys cause they will probably be almost always fighting targets taller than them. Long-sword *can* stab, but other weapons are better. His spear/pike/poleaxe/halberd point is dead on. But the dwarves loved theira xes and maces and hammers cause they doubled as tools. :D If you spend your entire life beating metal into shape with a smith's hammer, then switch to a club or warhammer, the muscle memory and general principles are so close, the guy is basically already a master at it.
Jack Hand what else would you guys suggest. no dwarf is going to be able to unsheath any longsword with a blade long enough to make up for the reach disadvantages they have. best way to counter that that I can think of would be to get close and make the other guys advantage a moot point. I'm hoping maybe someone in the comment section is smarter than me and think of something that will work
I'm quite late to the party, but will attempt to make a few points in defense of the good old dwarven axe and hammer here. Therefore I'm going to clarify a few things: Firstly by axe and hammer I'm not refering to one handed axes/warhammers explicitly. In truth I'm talking about everything with a axe or hammer axe. Secondly I'm going to assume the equivalent strength means that they can apply a higher force which combined with the shorter length over which they can apply it means generating the same kinetic energy as a human. So a Dwarf will defeat you in a pushing or towing battle, but hi strikes are as hard as yours. This brings me to two conclusions regarding their use of axes and such. The higher strength (in terms of force) combined with their lower point of weight makes them perfectly suited for grappling, or indeed hooking. The latter usualy requires something similar to an axe. The other point regards the disadvantage of "headed" weapons. Their far point of weight creates a lever effect increasing the amount of force the user needs to enact for keeping control. The established higher strength thus allows the dwarf a better control over top heavy weapons. This might even allow them to get away with much longer axes than humans use.
Traditionally in fantasy Dwarves tend to wear heavy armour which is why they tend to carry hammers and axes as they are better for fighting against heavy armour
Think gladii. Short stocky creatures with scutum-sized shields covering most of them in a relatively dense formation stabbing you in the legs and lower torso.
Tomas Rocha Martins A dwarf's polearm would have to be significantly longer then a human's to be effective when fighting human sized targets which are the norm in fantasy settings.
Just wondering why you discounted spears. Being short and stocky could well reduce their shoulder movement meaning simpler wespons like spears, axes and hammers would work better for them. Given their large shields, would they not fight in more if a phalanx/roman shield wall style way in battle meaning spears for teach them short stabbing weapons for up close. Would the large shield also negate some of the reach disadvantage meaning they fight by just marching stubbornly forward behind their shield until the can close the distance and bring their shorter weapons to bear which is in character (inexorable advance).
@@TheRezro Why would dwarves be fighting in the mines? You fall back to a larger chamber behind the exploratory tunnels where you have the benefit of engineered defensive emplacements.
@@Loalrikowki Because only idiot rely on territorial advantage. There is famous Chinese tell about impenetrable gate here, what didn't help because enemy breach the walls. Yes, you should use it when you can, but you need be capable to fight everywhere. Because what use of big chamber if enemy cut your supply lines and you can't push him pack to block his? Seriously people. Strategy 101.
...I've been working on my own high fantasy novel series, and the dwarves in it use pike formations and halberds as their primary methods of melee attacks, and crossbows/cannons for ranged combat. Their front ranks typically use square tower shields and falchions. You basically predicted the same things I did. Holy crap.
Awesome Video! I still think that Dwarves are suited with axes because they like to get right up into the face of there enemy. They don't like to keep them at reach. Also, dwarves smallness like you said would help them have a lot of strength behind an axe cut because they don't have to worry about balance as much since they are so close to the ground and are so stocky. They easily can overpower the defense of someone by breaking their weapon or even since there short hit at there legs or lower body very easy. It's hard to defend yourself sometimes when a small person comes at you that is most likely as strong as you but now you're trying to defend your legs and trying not to fall backward and such. But I do agree with your Video. I just think it would depend on the individual dwarf as well. They obviously like axes and hammers. Maybe some do use swords and halberds as well!? who knows in fantasy. Also, they would have such powerful armor vs a human they could easily get up close to someone with any weapon they choose. Again Great Video. I am a big fan of yours. I am also a big fan of Tolkien and it sounds like you are too! I loved your comment "papa Tolkien"! Thanks for Video!
So, I shared this video on in a D&D group on Facebook, and it created a bit of a shitstorm of opinions. There were a lot of people who agreed with you, or mostly agreed, but with some small points that they differed from you on. There were also a lot of people whose comments could be summed up as "Why are you using logic in fantasy? You ruin my preferred fantasy settings when you do that with your own!" Among the more agreeable people though, we came up with an idea: Imagine Dwarves mimicking the Roman Empire in their type of equipment, government and society, organization, etc., but with the idea that they are still primarily subterranean. Gladius, scutum, pila, pugio, caligae, the whole Roman thing, but shorter. The issue of reach was still an issue, so we figured that, perhaps, they reserve such weapons for the relatively few times when they would be in such tight and confined spaces as to make their limited reach less of an issue. Otherwise, we imagined that they would more or less be like the Triarii from the Pre-Marian legions, but with everything else in the Imperial era style. With their existing prowess with siege warfare and their underground dwellings, I would think that Dwarves could, if they set their mind to it, pretty much collapse an entire city as a show of force, or insert a large force of troops within said city from beneath.
The people who say "Why are you using logic in fantasy?" are fucking idiots. This stupid discussion's happened 1000 times and every time the answer's the same: LotR, D&D, etc. copy-paste 90% of their content from the real world. Humans are just humans and all other bipedal races are "like humans but...". As a result, things can be expected to obey the rules of the real world unless explicitly stated otherwise. It's the difference between realism and verisimilitude.
Dwarven Phalanx. Dwarves with tower shiled scaled to their size ( same amount of material but thicker by virtue of being shorter) armed with spears. Greater endurance means the formation could be held for longer and push further.
a mace would be better for armored enemies. . . and just as good with unarmoured. but many think of the mace as a cruel weapon, since it doesn't kill as quickly or cleanly as a sword or axe.
Long maces are significantly less effective due to leverage issues, you would be better off with warhammers, which remain effective even as pole hammers. That said, Warhammers are drastically less effective than spears, poleaxes, and swords on unarmored opponents. Meanwhile poleaxes are about as effective as warhammers on armored opponents. As for flails, they are an unwieldy weapon that is as much a danger to yourself and your friends than your enemies, if not more. There is next to no evidence that they were ever used militarily on any kind of verifiable scale.
I was writing an essay here but hem o browser reloaded, so I'll give the short answer. Dwarves prefer man to man fight, crossbows are better cuz they can be shot multiple times in a mid range-ish fight, plus, archery is about accuracy, not speed, and don't have such a thing. Halberds, dwarves are too short thus unnable to handle them properly. Swords can balance their lack or height but only a fool would use it. As you said, shorter arms = more strength, and that's the why axes and hammers are beter for dwarves. This type of armors is design in a way that it amplifies the strength of those who wields it. Dwarves get this doubled. They have short arms wich means, more strength and they use weapons that amplifies this great amount of damage. While a human would need severe cuts from his swords, only one hit from the Dwarf's axe would be more than enough
The best example I can think of is Dain Ironfoot's troops in Battle of The Five Armies. They have good Shields and pikes. Their strength allows them to use a very long pike/spear in one hand, and their bodies make for an excellent shield wall formation. Also, if you look at the swords they use, they are long with a weighted angular bit at the end for extra power.
Depends on the setting and the lore in general. Often it's associated with Orc raiders raping their victims, but that is far from the only way. Merely that is the most common assumption because the Orc are treated as "always evil" in many settings for the sake narrative ease (Lazy story telling). Other possible options relate to more primitive humans and orc tribes unifying or having semi-peaceful relationships resulting in genuine relationships forming between individuals. Some settings even try to pass them off as their own race crafted by a god trying to mix and match the best traits of both Orcs and Humans. As for how, well once again this is setting dependent. In base D&D settings like Realms, Greyhawk etc, the Orc gods gave them the ability to reproduce with other races in order to try and out breed them. In other settings their sterile hybrids that suggest a common link between orcs and humanity, in a handful half-breed races are not even a thing because the different race are truly different species.
There is that but Tolkien never implied rape as the reason for the creation of half-orcs, remember there are many willing human servants of both Sauron & Saruman both of whom were trying to create strong and more effective breeds of Orcs during their campaigns against middle earth. I think Forgotten realms is far more guilty of this trope in general as a result of R.A. Salvador's rather stupid comparison in his 4th edition works.
Orks are pretty humanoid. Think of something like a Mule or a Liger perhaps. Nothing in fantasy settings to me seems to dictate that different "races" don't belong to the same species, in the way we now might call something "half-Italian" or some garbage.
Expect the biological differences are too wide to be merely minor adaptations to environment, it would suggest artificial engineering of the species if that were true. Mind you the fact that they are mostly humanoid suggest a common ancestor somewhere down the line, or the possibility that the races are in essence mutations upon a common species.
Yeah. Think of it this way: if the fantasy race of Dwarves trained in deadlift, it'd be like doing rack pulls compared to a human's deadlift. They'd probably pull much more weight.
From what I can remember of middle earth lore, the reason for hammers and axe was due to fighting in tunnels and that they were closely related to the tools they use.
Think of romans, very small people, their enemies like Celts and Germans were very tall a good head higher if not more, the romans (dwarves in this case) wore heavy armour large shield and short stabbing sword, the axe would be good to use as a ballistic weapon, not unlike a pilum. So facing 'giants' as dwarves do (tall people) roman tactic's and deployment makes most sense. Just my views, also crossbows would be used by the part time soldiers called up to fight for their dwarf lord in times of need, heavy infantry with shield and weapon would be trained soldiers.
I don't know... What makes you supose that romans were smaller? They wouldn't be taller or at least the same height as celtic and germans of the time? Hadn't romans better alimentation while growing up with all the technics of farming and economical development?
The Celts were on average taller by around 6 inches, which to the romans in general made the Celts looked a lot taller on masse. diet has nothing to do with height when the ethnic group of people are naturally a certain height, its more to do with genetics. Given we are talking about Dwarves fighting style, in close combat where one army is on average shorter then it would have been very noticeable, the Celts used huge battle swords and fought in open order, the romans used a short sword as they fought in close order. roman and celtic shields were the same size, but the romans could use it to cover their whole body while the celts could not, in close combat been 6" taller gives a roman a 6" area to stab a celt. So the Dwarf with a kite shield like in the video could make better use of it than a average fantasy human.
I read somewhere that shaving your head and standing out in the sun all day makes your skull more resistant to mace strikes. I think it was Herodotus (The guy everyone quotes on the Persian wars). I take ancient reports with a grain of salt. It sounds better if you are facing a million men or giants who are 10 feet tall.
Actually, the increased vitamin D levels by bearing more flesh to sunlight _could_ help by developing stronger bones. I doubt enough to stop a mace of course. XD But it makes a certain basic logical sense.
well I disagree. the lord of the rings dwarves don't really need shields. Think about it, in the lore not only are they as strong as a man but less then half the height to begin with but their life style is working in mines, building into stone, and smithing. These guys I wager are stronger then the avg man just from the additional obsessive hard labor they do. This is great in armor because one of the issues that comes into play with all armor in all of war from men to even tanks is usually their comes a certain point where the armor just isn't able to be good enough to stop the weaponry being used on it and to add more would make moving impossible leading designers to either find light weight but effective versions or just put on almost no armor if they cant in order to opt for mobility. I don't think the dwarves suffer this so much because not only do they tend to create the most advanced weapons and armor leading one to believe they are on the fore front of lighter weight but just as effective designs but because they have half as much surface area to cover but as much if not more strength so in theory not only will the richest and best of warriors have the most well designed armor in middle earth but they also can have twice as much if not more without sacrificing prior mobility. Imagine a human helmet that is more then an 8th or quarter inch thick but is instead a half inch plus thick for dwarves. And they can just put this better double thickness armor all over themselves head to toe. Just imagine the tallest and strongest of all the dwarves fitted with the most advanced armor heavier then a normal man could hope to pick up and incredibly thick built to his bodies specifications. I don't think a shield is necessary since shields are really their because the armor is good enough.
I mean jeez, dwarves armor can be so good while being lite that a feather heavy mithril chain mail armor saved a hobbit not just from being impaled by a troll with a pole arm but his ribs didn't break either.
actually, i think it would go the other way. the richer the dwarf is, the thinner his armor would be. because they would have money to make their armor lighter but stronger with materials better then iron/steel, like mithril. although mithril is, in general lore, heavier than iron/steel, is way stronger, so you can have it way more thinner than those, and have the same defense, now imagine a swift dwarf, now that is scary.
Good armor and hardiness doesn't stop a blade finding a weak point in your armor or a mace bashing your skull in through your helmet, a shield does. Shields are always viable options for the off hand, no matter what people say. Besides, I'd personally prefer to have attacks bouncing off my shield than off my armor. Also I'd imagine Dwarven society would be similar to Medieval Human Society, in that the richest people (IE the King, a Lord, etc) wouldn't be doing the work, so your point about richer dwarves having thicker (and thus heavier) armor is moot since most wouldn't have the physicality to wield them. However if we take what huroikai said into account, then richer dwarves could still have the most protective armor just because of the material.
Robert Dicke you say their is always a problem about armor not good enough, but in certain times normal European armor was basically invincible to anything sharp unless you found an opening in the armor, so the best weapons against it would be smashing weapons, which your "thicker armor" doesn't help with at all, so sorry sir, your point is invalid
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 2404707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tn3bGHiBWkg/mqdefault.jpg)
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.77[2/2] "รับทราบ" แก๊งเพื่อนรัก 10 ปี ที่ไปไหนก็มีตำนาน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ifc0ofD51B0/mqdefault.jpg)
Orcs: "Big Bows!",
Elves: "Bows at night!"
Dwarves: "Small bows!"
So basically everyone needs a bow lol
Gengis khan would aprouve.
When it comes to dwarves, personally: crossbows, throwing axes and firearms with bayonets.
@@AvengerofWarcraft Crossbow is a girls weapon
Bows were the pinnacle of weapon's technology plus range management has always been a good idea for fights
Gee. Maybe bows were kinda effective....
so, you're telling me Thorin Oakenshield has the most optimized dwarf loadout in Lord of the Rings. awesome.
I believe you mean in The Hobbit.
@@devinm.6149 it's the same universe
@@gustavodasilvaprobst890 but it's a different story.
Which is why he's a legendary fighter. Every other dwarf is putting himself at a disadvantage
Bah, everybody knows that Dwarves use magical axe.
8:21 you seem to be forgetting the fact...
that dwarves are very dangerous over short distances!
They’re natural born sprinter you know
You seem to forget that someone could potentially dual wield rapiers or arming swords
Wasted on cross country
DWARFS ARE NATRUAL SPRINTERS
Roman legionary
You forgot the fact that most of the time dwarves fight in tunnels. This makes long weapons a no go. So swords, axe (which can be used against enemy shields) and hammers (again good against shields and also reminiscent of the hammer they use to forge. Also a real warhammer looks a bit like a pickaxe. again something they use regularly. so it is something familiar to them). Fighting in tunnel means shields are even better for them (heavy armored shield wall blocking a tunnel With a row of crossbows behind them).
I don't think you fully understand combat. Spears are very effective in tunnels. REACH wins more medieval fights than anything else. A dwarf in a tunnel with a stupid axe would die immediately to a halberd overhead pull or spear thrust. Even with the shield covering most the body there would still be many ways to exploit their openings, especially considering shields aren't see-through . Obviously things like a greatsword, which require long wide spinning swings, would be ineffective in tunnels unless half-sworded. But most polearms with a pointy boi would be just fine.
@@SharkByteOfficial ya... halberd on tunnel, good luck on that one buddy.
What part of tunnel do you not understand? Tunnel don't just mean narrow in width, it could be narrow both in width and height, completely relying on weapon that require great space of width and height to be use at it's best is suicidal.
Spears are very effective in tunnels. Sure, assuming you fighting against unarmored opponent, but what about full plate armored opponent? Dwarves are known for for their metal technology, blacksmith technique and whatnot. So it should not be surprising that they fighting style is revolving around "wear heavy armor and break their bones with blunt weapon and cut their head off to finish them off".
Don't you say just sTaB tHeM iN eYeS! That's no different than saying that cops should aim the threat legs, paper spray their eyes 10 feet away, or taze their ass as if it's fail-proof. It's unrealistic and/or unreliable, pure hollywood fantasy.
In Dragon Age, they would agreed with you, spears(assuming the darkspawn armor aren't advance, which they are, pretending the armor they wearing is decent at best and worst, and they not stupid enough to NOT equip their grunt with a decent helmet), and halberd would be great for the dwarves(assuming the dwarves will always be fighting on large open space bridge and tunnel) but in real world, you don't get to chose your battlefield. So what weapon that the dwarves can use in any situation not including range weapon? A shield(to protect against blunt weapon, that's the reason full plate/armored knight still using them, once you go full plate, only blunt weapon can harm you not including specailize weapon), a 1 handed weapon or 2 handed (short) weapon, short enough where narrow place would not hinder your fighting capability. Like the thumbnail.
long weapon a no go? Not quite exactly, long pole weapon would be hard to transport, yes, but their reach would give a massive advantage on the narrowness of the tunels. The answer is easy, telescopic weapons.
@@SharkByteOfficial So you telling us that you in a tunnel would be better then full plate wearing dwarf with a big ass axe? dwarf who are like 3 to 4 time stronger then normal human? I believe not, yes in fight range is good but range mean nothing if you cant hit, shield beat spear inside tunnel and you cant turn because it to small a space.
@@tigerbesteverything I don't think a collapsing polearm would withstand the riggers of a battle very well. Let alone dwarven armor.
Tyrion Lannister in Game of thrones said: Give a Small man a big shield and the archers will hate him
Im certain Bronn would have said "The cunts would hate him"
LOL
Actually Bronn said it, to Tyrion
In book at least
Thank you for the coughing laugh .
"this dwarf just discovered a new trick - archers hate him!"
Aren't dwarves usually considered stronger than humans though? Or at least, an average dwarf is considered as strong as a strong human
Krono ye i was about to write the Same since normaly dwarf are a Lot stronger then humans in average
normaly Dwarfs/Dwarves are iirc are far stronger and more enduring than most humans
Agreed.In all my tabletop gaming experiences with many games dwarves have always been stronger than humans.D&D,Warhammer,Rolemaster,Middle Earth Role playing(ironcrown) advanced D&D gamma world etc.
Krono they are as strong as humans, but because of smaller leverage since smaller arms and legs they can exort much more force
No they arent. In DnD they just get a Con boost. They are as strong as an average human. However that is condensed in a smaller frame, so that is something
I take Taekwondo, and one of the tactics we teach our students if they're sparring someone taller than them is to get in close. Up close, their opponent can't effectively kick as easily, because the length of their legs actually gets in the way.
I think this is the strategy behind giving dwarves short 1-handed axes. Dwarves should have good armor, and giving them short weapons allows them to get in close and inside the lever arm of their enemies. Their enemy will have a tough time generating armor-piercing blows if the dwarf is too close.
This kind of brutal up-close fighting seems to fit the personalities of dwarves that I've seen in Tolkien and in Warcraft.
YES FINALLY i do Taekoando and my teacher is called master Kim and he taught us that
I am a black belt in Taekwondo
And that Taekwondo lesson and me being a tall person is the reason why I switched to Muay Thai. Let the short man get in close. They're gonna get some elbows and continuous knees with a headlock grasp. Or a teep here and there to reassert my reach followed by shin roundhouse kicks. My point is, real combat has more strategies than just "me small so me play to advantage of getting close with stronk armur"... Neither party will just stand idle either. A lankier foe may still dispatch a dwarf rushing in as armor has never been very bash proof and you still can't run straight through a polearm unless you're lucky to deflect and fully disarm it. Otherwise the lanky polearm foe may just keep going backwards and taking more life threatening jabs at the poor dwarf.
with dwarves being short and stocky it'd be tough to knock them down too, and with their often superior strength getting in grapple/CQC range with a dwarf would often leave you at a disadvantage.
@@qq-lw2vp master Kim? Where's your taekwondo class? I have a teacher, we call him master Kim as well.
Most dwarves are stronger than humans
I describe the Dwarves themselves in a hopefully plausible manner, as follows:
-- Dwarves are essentially evolved Neanderthals (Cave Men in most settings) with better brains (possibly even better than humans; to quote C.S. Lewis of Narnia Chronicles fame, “I never met a dwarf who was stupid”). I also give them at least as much weight (if not more) as a typical human on a different frame with fewer juvenile muscle traits than humans (making them stronger on the average than humans of equal weight), and a highly resistant physiology; plus, the normal Dwarvish traits such as Stone-Cunning and Thermographic Vision.
-- With regards to magic, I make Dwarves more magic-resistant, but possessing limited-to-no arcane spell-casting ability. Their innate magic resistance makes them unable to channel the more delicate magical energies through their bodies, especially the energies of Wizard-type magic.
-- Priestly spell-casting (primarily healing and the like), with Artificing (ability to imbue objects with magic) would be the sole Dwarven forms of spellcasting. The idea of Dwarven clerics enchanting weapons, armor, and even devices that can dispense clerical magics seems to be a sound one.
-- A Dwarven cleric’s spell list should focus on Healing, Battle Magic (spells that enhance combat ability, armor, and weapons on self/personal and others, Fire, and Earth (including creature summoning for the last two without fear of the creature turning on its summoner).
Well I’ve beaten up 2 dwarves this week alone, so unless we’re talking about different dwarves then I’d say you’re wrong
@@kinkgirl88 I think you are
Depending in the source, they also have proportionally longer arms and broader shoulders, making their lack of reach less dramatic.
@@mitsublanc-pegazzi5460, is this a Japanese source by any chance?
I've also experimented with various sub-races of Dwarves, including:
1. Hill Dwarves: Your typical run-of-the-mill/fairly generic D&D Dwarves.
2. Mountain Dwarves: Taller than other Dwarves at up to 5' tall, heavier and stronger than humans. Somewhat isolationist mountain-dwellers and somewhat xenophobic (charisma penalty/constitution bonus/ strength bonus). Highly lawful (neutral or good).
3. Deep Dwarves: isolationist, somewhat xenophobic, and exclusively underground- dwelling, better infravision, slight disadvantage under daylight, better stone-cunning abilities with some innate spell-like abilities. Also longer arms and broader shoulders. More neutral than other Dwarves.
4. Dark Dwarves: Essentially D&D Duergar. Very lawful and very evil. Tall as mountain Dwarves but human-like build with no juvenile muscle characteristics to give higher strength. They also possess better than human average dexterity, and innate abilities of Hide in Shadows/move silently, plus a few spell-like abilities.
One reason why Dwarves prefer crossbows over bows is that when fighting in tunnels (common thing against goblins, and various underground creatures), bows are likely to be unwieldy, especially when ceilings are at Dwarf-head level.
+Cornered Fox
Wouldn't that mean accelerating the arrow over a very short distance though?
If you want arrows to have a lot of momentum, you need a strong force accelerating the arrow over a long distance. It's basic physics, projectile energy = work done by the bowstring = force times distance
Crossbows are making up for the shorter draw distance by having higher draw weights than bows. You're suggesing having low draw weight (drawable by hand) and smaller bows, which would mean altogether very small projectile energy. Not good.
Also, I'd think underground you'd rarely shoot over long distances (where bows excell due to heavier projectiles and fast rate of fire). Underground, it's good if you can get just one volley before engaging in melee. So I'd rather have a heavy crossbow that I shoot once, then switch to a polearm and shield for melee, without bothering to reload. So doesn't matter if the crossbow takes minutes to reload with a crank.
Also, since we're talking about fighting in mineshafts, I'd guess many opponents will have metal armor. They live in mines where metal is mined, right? They'd make use of it. Especially if they are hostile Dwarves. But even if they're just orcs or goblins, they'd have plenty of metal. Possibly stolen from Dwarves. And underground monsters can have tough hides. So heavy crossbows can be really useful for piercing those. And against unarmored goblins? You might be able to kill several with a single shot of a 800-1200 lbs crossbow.
And don't forget, in caves and mineshafts there are plenty of locations where you can find cover to safely reload that crossbow in case of a protracted battle. Or you can just use a shield for cover. All the while the frontline is very narrow in a tunnel. Not to mention the Dwarves excell in defense, which can prolong the battle long enough for the back rows to reload while the front rows fight in melee. Thus taking the time to reload is more akin to siege battles than battles in the open. All these conditions favor crossbows.
Narrow spaces and winding tunnels? Wind up crossbow and you're ready for anything that comes around a corner.
Traditional bow? You're going to have to hold that thing ready for ages to ensure you're prepared for the inevitable dangerous corner.
Draw rate? Due to the construction of a crossbow, the draw method (either winch, or foot stirrup and double handed draw), you can make the limbs significantly thicker/tenser. requiring shorter draw and shorter overall limb length. So you get the same amount (or more) energy stored in a more manoeuvrable, smaller spring. the extra power that comes from being able to use both hands more than makes up for any reduced draw distance. Modern crossbows, when compared with modern compound bows, shoot significantly heavier projectiles at significantly higher speeds. something like 40-45% more kinetic energy and ~30% more momentum is imparted into the bolt even when compared to a 70 pound draw weight compound bow.)
Similarly, dwarves are renowned for being heavily armoured. probably something to do with their mining/manufacturing culture and the reduced quantity of metal it takes to encase the smaller body. Which is better at piecing thick armour at short distances? Crossbow.
Let's face it, there's a reason why crossbows became more popular and longbows and compound bows less favourable with the advent of heavy plate armour.
+radred609
I don't think there's that much of a difference between holing a bow ready and holding a crossbow ready. Unless you're a masochist and you actually keep the bow drawn all the time.
Regarding heavier projectiles, traditionally longbow arrows were heavier than crossbow bolts, but if we consider bolts made entirely out of metal, things could look different. Although keep in mind that traditional, wooden-shafted, front-heavy arrows and bolts gained a lot of stability from being built as such. And Dwarves probably don't have access to glass fiber, carbon fiber and similar modern materials. Aluminum or similar metals could work for the shaft though, while keeping the steel tip. With some fletching this should be stable enough.
Also, I don't think a Dwarven armor would take less metal than a human one. First - Dwarves are stocky, with thicker limbs and torsos compared to humans. They weigh about the same as humans. Secondly, you adjust the amount of metal not based on size, but based on strength (how much protection can you wear before it causes more problems than benefits?). So Dwarven armors are thicker than human ones.
Also, crossbows became more popular for a few more reasons. You don't need decades of training to use a high-power crossbow, as opposed to the most powerful longbows. Thus even peasants could be quickly armed with crossbows and still be effective. And crossbows are better at prolonged siege combat, both for the defenders and the attackers.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you wrote.
Right, but if you're not holding it ready then there's the added response time.
It's not much, but it's still there.
Certainly not an issue in open combat. Potentially an issue in close quarters.
Also, is not fair to be comparing crossbows to longbows in this specific instance. The expected height of a longbow archer is ~6'. A dwarf isn't going to have the draw length to properly utiliser a longbow and caverns are not condusive to the large limb length.
And, sure, Dwarven armour may be thicker, but that's the point. It takes less metal to give the same amount if protection. So it's cheaper/easier to give more protection. They're two sides of the same point. However you word it, it's the same result: dwarves have more need for the added armour penetrarion of a crossbow.
Tennouseijin true. Swords and pole arms present the same problem.
7:10
"A small man with a big shield will drive the archers mad"
-Bronn, son of...you don't know him.
That line always confused me. Why is a line of archers going to care if they can't hit a single guy? It's not like archers are systematically picking out targets to eliminate one by one anyway.
I think the assumption is that all the enemies the archers are trying to down are small with large shields.
yes, the archers are not picking off a specific person, but they shoot large numbers of arrows into a group of enemies hoping to take a few out. If the enemy is small and completely covered by their shield, then the archers just become useless since they can't hit past the shield.
Depends on the projectiles, but this is mostly true. Remember the Romans used a javelin with a soft iron shaft that would penetrate the shield and bend, weighing down the shield until it becomes all but useless. Granted one arrow wouldn't have same weight as a five foot (or longer) javelin, and shields of that size wielded by people that short could be rested on the ground when you weren't moving, but I imagine twenty or thirty heavy war arrows would still add a lot of weight to a shield, assuming they can penetrate it and stick. But even in melee, shields do benefit shorter people a lot more. I remember a guy in my LARP group who used to be called the dwarf because he carried a big shield, regularly took hits to the legs, and then knelt down and turned into an impenetrable wall. I used to joke that he should fight like that from the start instead of trying to stand up.
So, I just found this series... and I have to say, I think you're off.
The big problem with Polearms and long weapons for Dwarves is Leverage. Although they're the same strength, a human could disarm a bunch of Halberd-armed dwarves by dodging, then intercepting the attempt to regain control. The weapons are simply too unwieldy because the dwarves can't get enough space between their arms to leverage them properly.
Instead, what Dwarves have to do is recognize they lost the Reach game, so instead, focus on getting INSIDE the enemy's reach (Using heavy armor on their arms, shoulders, and head to deflect blows in the meantime), and use heavy-headed weapons to increase striking momentum in short spaces. They'd use axes, DAGGERS, and two-handed kneecapping hammers.
I actually agree with you here.
Their lack of leverage is something that I also brought up. Not many people have thought of that.
Bearded Bjorn
Since they need to get up close anyway due to their short reach, leverage isn’t an issue. In fact leverage and longer arms are a disadvantage in close quarters combat because you can’t get the full range of motion, but shorter arms still retain full range of movement.
Gutbuster brigade!
You could scale them down slightly, also adding a weight to the other end like a butt spike could help with that issue, look at greek phalanxes were they used really long spears with one hand
One thing that a lot of people miss but is inherent in Dwarves is that they have a much lower center of gravity with their mass and strength. Dwarves would be fantastic grapplers due to this, capable of getting under their opponents. The author Markus Heitz uses this as a part of his introduction to a group of dwarves later on in the series "The Dwarves".
The following is just a background of the reason for the iconicism of smaller weapons for dwarves, specifically the axe. Shad specifically addresses that he is talking about humanoid combatants in this series:
A big reason for the pairing of short stature and no-reach is that a fighting tactic for dwarves (recounted in a number of DnD, Paizo, Palidium Press, and other game system books) is that they are constantly fighting giants and orcs rather than humanoids. Having the smaller weapons allows them to get between the legs of these larger creatures to do damage to the lower extremities before dealing death blows to the head.
Excellent video, but it fails to mention the armour dwarves would have used.
Being shorter and sturdier than humans, armour is a thing where their shortness would actually be an advantage. Having smaller surface area than humans, their armours could have been twice or thrice as thick as human equivalent, and good luck in penetrating that much steel. They would be walking tanks.
Probably why Gimli's helmet looks so sturdy!
In D&D, dwarven plate armor tends to be flat-out better than the human equivalent, and that's typically attributed to it being specifically-built for dwarves, not just because of dwarven craftsmanship. I always assumed it was because the armor was thicker.
twice or thrice as thick and made of mithril, the fantasy equivalent of adamantium or vibranium, and even better when it covers their whole body in spikes, like The Gutbuster Brigade. Imagine a mix between Wolverine, Rhino, and a porcupine. now imagine a battalion of them.
it's also good to note that the weight of heavy armour will not impede a dwarf
Legend of Drizzt
Ay' true Enough their Ladd! BUT also a imagine the effectiveness of many little Sturdy Dwarf STEAMtank with the wolves in the wolven armour inside the Armored tank the mindwould over boggle at That? Lol;}
Ta Ladz! .MM
But wouldn't axes be more effective than halberds within smaller, tighter spaces e.g. inside castle/keep walls or underground tunnels where Dwarves usually reside?
Phuoc Truong also consider than dwarves are usually heavily armored, male hauberk at least, and falchions are torally useless against proper made steel male and plate
Not necessarily. One of the features of a halberd is you can also use it like a spear, and that can be super effective in tight spaces, especially for defending doorways or tight hallways.
I do agree they would be very useful in those environments, I guess I was more thinking about adventuring and warfare ^_^
Also if space is a premium then the single handed heavy bladed swords +Shadiversity mentioned would work
Since Dwarfs spend most of the their warfare lives underground fighting goblins and such, a long spear would be a disadvantage. Similarly a bow wouldn't work in a tunnel that's about as high as a dwarf is tall and it's main advantage (being able to fire over their own troops) wouldn't work either.
As dwarfs have those large shield to compensate for their lack of reach, they should be charging in up close and use short stabbing weapons ala romans. Perhaps their preference for axes is due to their primary opponent (goblins) being thin, wiry, and hard to stab.
Just checking the video's about the fantasy-races etc. Don't agree with this one, the standard dwarf, the Dungeons&Dragons and also the LOTR dwarf, is stronger than the average human. In LOTR it isn't really clear, but in most fantasy games/books the dwarf is a lot stronger and they live under the ground, in caves, mountains etc. So polearms or swords wouldn't be handy. A short, not as short as goblins or gnomes, but very strong person can do more damage with an axe or hammer and it's handier in a cave or tunnel. They are also strong enough to wear full plate armor so it's like a small tank running up to you hacking your legs of and after that your head...
i agree with you dwarfs they lives underground axes and hamers for close combat
You've said the same thing that literally 2 dozen other people did. Congrats. You've added nothing of value to the discussion.
in fact to be very useful in tunnels and closed spaces, they need weapons that don't need to be swung.
Short swords, gladiuses and daggers. Even fists weapons or bladed gauntlets. (look for how Boudica was defeated by the romans, you'll understand)
The (pretty great ) analysis of Shad is only correct in open grounds, but to be fair, the analysis of the other races will be done in open ground setup
@Slider1207, still adds more than you bitching about it, so go count replies or whatever your hobby is...
You can still use a spear.
Your analysis for dwarf weapons (and in your other video about hobbits) makes perfect sense if they were on a battle field. But I cant imagine gimli carrying around a 7-10foot long halberd in the forest, in the mines of moria, on a castle wall etc. The same for hobbits. On a battle field they would be great weapons to overcome their heh short comings but in a small group and going into unknown terrain a great big spear would probably get in the way and be hard to carry. I imagine that they would be holding up the head of the weapon while the end of the spear drags on the ground behind them.
7-10foot long halberd? What?!
@@IncognitoActivado halberd, pike, lance, spear... long stick with pointy bits on the end.
@@westcoastwarriorsarchive7929 Okay, and is there a reason why they have to be long and not shorter for them?
@@IncognitoActivado my assumption of them having very long weapons is based on the fact that they're really small and (assuming im remembering the video correctly) how shad describes them using spears to make up for their lack of reach. Therefore having something like a short spear would basically just put them on par with a human using a sword. So I imagine them using something like a pike. Which were often very long and used to stop cavalry charges, and while the weapon would make up for their lack of reach it would be very hard to carry a pike through dense forest or dwarven mine tunnels. So despite having a large disadvantage carrying short swords I dont see it being practical for them to be carrying long spears on an adventure.
@@westcoastwarriorsarchive7929 Sooo all those mistakes of yours were based on assumptions, right?
I actually disagree: Dwarves typically live underground - which seem to be a factor not taken into account.
Opposite to a crossbow, a bow needs height. (the center of the bow is at shoulder height). This would limit them in all corridors that are 'only' at dwarf-height.
Likewise, a polearm would end up a HUGE disadvantage to mobility (perhaps not fighting mobility but "a couple of goblins are attacking 2 corridors down." )
I agree, dwarves would use weapons primarily for killing other dwarves. Just as humans use weapons primaril to kill other humans.
I was going to say more or less the same, extrams0. With the addendum that dwarven weapons usually derive directly from tools they use when not at war. Hammers, axes etc. You could argue they always have a weapon and a tool at hand, and without excessive encumbrance.
A counterpoint could be that having a shielded pike formation in a corridor would effectively block it completely against any possible intruders. Come at us, try to break free. Hammers and axes probably wouldn't be nimble enough to hit fast-moving goblins.
So both ideas have advantages and disadvantages.
Personally I like the "one and done" kind of weapons like hammers and axes, because of the tao of Howard Stark, the best weapon is a weapon you only need to use once.
+Sir Greggory Groda I don't quite agree it would neccecairly be anti-dwarf. Consider that nothing stops an intra-species war like a common enemy. (sure you might not like them drunks of the Heimdall clan, but when the dark elves come knocking at your door, better to have a good sturdy dwarf at your side, amirite ?)
But nontheless, their weapons would be designed for the location they live (either defend their home, or conquer new terrain)
Partly true, but we then need to rethink the weapons used by humans in these settings. Humans fighting dwarfs would be axes and mazes, as they are fighting smaler targets bows or crosbows bbecome less efective. Humans against elves would need to be fighted with cavalry as elves has the upper hand in range in most settings. We can't apply our normal medieval logic on humans if we mainly focus on intra-species war.
Another thing to consider regarding dwarven construction is that while they are underground, they are also built to accommodate humans' and elves' heights if not go well overboard to impress with vaulted ceilings in spacious rooms. Mining tunnels though, yeah, tight quarters.
When Shad starts saying "I just wanted to say that I love X" means that X is about to get slammed by critiques, rants and complaints.
I rant, therefor I love.
Shadiversity shad, several people have brought up dwarves live in smaller tighter places like caves and mountains, where reach isn't as big a factor and going to be more one on one or small group fighting, you're only looking at this as a battle formation dwarf army, which in battle of the five armies they HAD pole arms, so instead of focusing on big battlefield weaponry, instead what do you think would fit them best in their typical areas of living and fighting, in tunnels and caves and such. And also dwarves tend to deal with armored enemies so war hammers would make more sense then a bladed sword.
+Ninja Tyler actually, as many have answered already, warhammers are WORSE than swords in corridors. Why? Because corridors, as you keep reminding about polearms, fuck your reach, and warhammers need some room to be used, you know, because you have to swing them, while piercing swords are STABBING weapons, which in a corridor can be used perfectly, so no dice there. Now if you say there's enough room to swing that would be ok, but then the spear would have enough room to operate too, meaning it takes the cake, as it's not swung like the rest of polearms nor as long as the pike and still gives a great advantage.
Furthermore while dwarves have great metallurgy how great does it need to be to give full plate armor to entire armies? The answer is way too fucking great, and most of their non-dwarven opponents don't use plate armor, so if you're taking into account dwarves being numerous enought to have infighting (Which they are depicting as lacking for the most part in most fantasy universes, you know, because of being a semi-defunct race) they would be distributing partial armor and shields like the romans, meaning swords and spears win, like in roman times, and if they are few enough to have full plate for most of their warriors they aren't fighting themselves and orks/elves both go for light armor meaning swords and spears take the cake again, as the only armored opponent they'll be facing on a regular basis is humans and that's only the knights, not the whole army, making anti-armor weapons, as always, something used by anti-armor troopers, not the whole thing.
NinjaTyler now that I think about it the regular Dwarven swords look like a Roman Gladius and are probably used the same way in the tightly packed Dwarven unites.
I actually left a comment in this very video about how the roman spatha is the one I'd have gone with (it pretty much succeeded the gladius in the late roman empire, and is longer, which taking into account their reduced reach counts for a lot.)
Long pole weapons will be great for the land above, but dwarves were also miners, they lived UNDERground. So, long weapons wouldn't be much use there...
Well most of the big fights happen abive ground and they can just use shorter versions of halberds or warhammers in tunnels
@@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479 True.
My understanding of fantasy dwarves is that they still have relatively long arms. About the same reach as a human. They're not just humans that have been scaled down. So all of the assumptions based on reach would have to be reconsidered.
There is one weapon combination for dwarves that I am surprised was not considered:
SPEAR, SHIELD, and HEAVY ARMOR
For dwarves one-handed spear, similar to a Greek Dory, or a Roman Pilum, would be the perfect companion to a large roundshield (similar to the Greek Aspis) and appropriate heavy armor. Such a spear would probably be beefier than the human equivalent; featuring an armor-piercing point and an all metal/metal-shod shank for protection against enemy cutting weapons. The advantages of this kit (plus a one-handed weapon for close combat) for dwarves are as follows:
-- A spear of this type offers more reach than nearly any other one-handed weapon, and thus offers the least amount of handicap for a dwarf's shorter (but powerful) thrusting attack. The spear also has lower space requirements to use than most polearms (no more width than a dwarf's shoulders). It is an easy-to-use "hand-and-a half reach weapon" that lends itself well to use with a shield, especially when in formation.
-- The above-mentioned spear is also flexible. It can be used under- or over-handed, set vs. charge, wielded one or two-handed, and even can be thrown if necessary. A spear doubles as a hunting weapon or a weapon to be used against dangerous predatory animals. Such a weapon would be useful for a dwarven battlefield soldier, guardsman, or adventurer. This can also be used in places where a polearm would be unwieldy such as in the tunnels/hallways of a dwarven citadel.
-- Expect dwarves to use, and openly carry, more battlefield weapons in their day-to-day lives than humans would, because dwarves often have an "under siege" mentality even in times of relative peace ("We must be ready to go into battle at a moment's notice; dwarves are few, but our enemies are many...."). Unlike as with orcs however, this does not foster day-to-day violence; dwarven society has its aggressions directed outwards at its racial enemies, rather than against others of their own kind (dwarves almost never fight with, or steal from, other dwarves).
-- Well-armored dwarves in close formation with large roundshields and one-handed spears would be ideal troops to deploy in front of (and on the sides of) troops armed with longer-reach polearms and crossbows to better protect these shield-less, but still well-armored soldiers from direct attack by enemy missile fire, cavalry charge, or swarming attack by light infantry. This would turn a determined square of dwarves (and what dwarves aren't determined...?) into a brutally effective enemy-crushing machine.
-- The above-mentioned tactics would be practical for a shield wall, a phalanx, or even in Roman maniple-type formations. Probably any group of well-trained dwarves could utilize all of these formations on command of their leaders. Dwarves typically live longer than humans, and can have longer military careers. They have more time to train, keep better records, and have a more cohesive society overall).
-- The accompanying Aspis-type shield offers a higher degree of protection to dwarf than for a human, given its shape and the short, broad bodies of dwarves. An Aspis also doubles as a personal battering ram and close combat weapon when used offensively. This shield is even more practical for dwarves than it was for the real-life Greek Hoplites.
-- Good heavy armor is another advantage that dwarves typically have, because they normally have the best non-magical technology of any fantasy race. The impetus for developing good heavy armor is dwarven anatomy; tough but slower-moving dwarves fight best in the "prolonged combat stand and swing mode", rather than the "hit, dodge, and run" mode.
-- Expect dwarven armor to be more protective than anyone else's weight per weight, regardless of type. They will have good full plate when everyone else is struggling to make quality chain, and forging even decent plate mail might be a real stretch.... This technology advantage probably also includes areas outside of metalwork and mining. Expect at least some dwarves to be engineers of other types....
-- In addition to the heavy full plate armor that most dwarves would use when defending their citadels and fighting on an open battlefield, expect them to have very high-quality medium-weight armor (roughly from chainmail thru scale mail, to lorica segmentata) for combat in a broken-field environment. These intermediate armor types would also be attractive to dwarven adventurers.
-- Expect typical dwarven work clothes to be equal to leather armor or gambeson for protection. This is appropriate for those who do mining, metalwork, or labor outside of the citadel. Also expect any dwarven citadel to have lightly armed, and lightly-armored, highly-trained "special forces" infantry to do battle in a "wild" underground environment. These troops would be the equivalent of rangers on the surface, and might be referred to as "scouts", "cavers", or even "tunnel-rats." Not every dwarf will go into battle as a "walking tank" every time.
-- For dwarves wielding spear-and-shield as their primary weapon combination, there is some latitude regarding what secondary one-handed weapon could be used. For this, I would favor two weapons; to allow the dwarven soldier to choose between speed and reach vs. power.
-- The first weapon would be a one-handed cut-and-thrust sword. Cutting attacks are especially good for fighting opponents using “rat pack” tactics (large numbers of expendable troops with light armor and inferior weapons), and thrusting is important when facing well-armored opponents whose protection negates attacks with the sword’s edge. A distal taper with a narrow armor-piercing point is highly recommended for any dwarven sword). A Greek Xyphos or a Roman Gladius Hispaniensis would work fine for close work (tight formation/confined spaces underground); whereas an arming sword/knightly sword or a falchion/messer have more reach, and would be better for fighting in open formation/broken terrain. Any of these weapons work fine with a shield.
-- The second weapon would be a so-called “traditional dwarven headed weapon”: a one-handed battle ax, war hammer, or military pick (also expect two-headed combination weapons of any of these types). These weapons are useful at close range as high-damage cutting, bludgeoning, and piercing armor-defeating weapons that can also hook limbs, shields, and weapons. Any of these weapons also work fine with a shield. Expect dwarves to use teamwork tactics (the dwarf with the ax hooks the opponent’s shield and pulls it down, while another dwarf with a spear or sword scores the killing thrust…).
Any thoughts?
Well said and thought out. I like it a lot. :)
100% Agreeing on all of that, also really well written.
My thoughts? I love it, every word. I don't know if I love you or not, but time will tell.
Imma keep it real with ya chief. Nobody's gonna read that shit
So long as I don't have to fight these bearded terminators, its all good.
I would give them pickaxes.
Axel Tenveils lol
Sirwhite Alotlol Why the lol? I mean war picks.
Axel Tenveils sorry I just thought for a second them singing ominously into battle "hi-ho hi-ho"
Sirwhite Alotlol Okay, that is really fucking funny!
Axel Tenveils ikr? I would die if I went up against a dwarf doing that. instantly. it would be worth it.
Shad: No hammers
Dwarves: THE PHALANX WILL BRING SOME ORDER!!!
BFME refrense? I love that game
@@olivereklund7641 I see that you, too, are a man of culture. 😉👍
In the Forgotten Realms/ Icewind Dale trilogy by RA Salvatore, there is a short dialog between Drizzt DoUrden and Bruneor Battlehammer where Drizzt asks Bruneor why he wields an axe and how the dwarven folk consider it preferable over swords or spears and Bruneors response is epic:
Elf, if'n me people ran around with swords and spears a' swingin' an pokin with em in the tunnels we'd have been a long ago forgotten race. But suren our picks, hammers and axes always layin' about, none of our bones litter those tunnels.
Drizzt: Ahh makes good sense
Then why don’t Drow use axes?
It's worth considering that the traditional enemies of dwarves were also similarly small: being goblins. So dwarves wouldn't really be at any reach disadvantage there. Or very large things like ogres and trolls, wherein they relied on being short to run about beneath their feet, between their legs, and then have a heavy weapon to chop knees and tendons and bring them down.
@@SeismicHammer I believe that would be the case of principles, because Drow as in EVIL-NOT-DRIZZT-STYLE Drow are arrogant, veeeeery arrogant and using a weapon associated with some filthy bunch of drunken midgets such as dwatfs or better yet Duergar (which most of the time are slaves to the Drow) and fanatical believe in their superiority in every aspect, would make it a big no-no.
Was watching this and thinking of that, he entirely forgets to address terrain. It's also notable that other "underground" races tend to use crossbows, famously the drow. I suspect its because you can easily carry one around loaded for a prolonged period of time so its handy for guard duty and the like. Also even less room in caves and tunnels for bows.
@SeismicPebble The Drow are Elves so their agility is much greater than that of Dwarves. Hence why they favor swords.
they live in massive cave complexes. i feel like they would change their equipment depending on where they are at the time. i think all dwarves can expect to be in tight caves where the ability to swing weapons and move bows around is slightly problematic. in addition the kind of monsters that dwarves have to fight are more heavy armored and resistant to damage than those outside caves. this is why they would probably carry short spears, shields, and weapons that do lots of damage with a short reach like axes, hammers, and pickaxes.
nice comment, i wonder if dwarves would develop something akin to a flamethrower for fighting in these tunnels
You don't want to use a flamethrower in a tunnel, very bad idea.
You'd run out of oxygen very quickly.
ArchFiendAF I mean... can you really say that orcs and goblins are always heavily armored though? I suppose if they came upon a troll they might need an axe, but to kill an orc? I think a sword would do just fine. Unless you're talking about dwarves fighting other dwarves. In which case it actually makes loads of sense, considering dwarves generally have incredibly good armor. In fact, I propose that dwarves primarily use axes and hammers due to the dwarves developing them as useful tools to kill other dwarves. I also think that since they are a particularly industrious people, it's likely they place some cultural importance on hammers and axes that tiger cultures may not.
I think that Dwarves can hold their breath for quite long and are also not that stupid to really use the Flamethrowers in situations where they would consume all the oxygen immediatley, considering that they live in their caves and tunnels for thousands of years with constant technological progress....
@brendan bush. i dont actually consider orcs and goblins monsters, even trolls are just giants and mostly humanoid. i'm talking about creatures which burrow through solid rock with scales or plates covering their bodies several inches thick made from hard bone, stone, or even metal. worse case they are creatures of rock element in nature and are completely moving stone to the core.
Here are my thoughts on the matter:
1. In every setting that tries to be at least mildly realistic, much of the fights of dwarves would be against other dwarves. That means that the reach would be about even on both sides, but it also means that the warfare would take place in the dwarves home territory, which is in most fantasy worlds in underground tunnels and halls. In CQC you'll probably want a small weapon, that doesn't need too much space to use like a short sword or a shortl spear. On the other hand dwarves are usually heavily armoured, so they would be trained with weapons against armour like maces and hammers, crossbows and thin pointed spears or swords.
2. The dwarves are usually portraited as rather defensive with heavy fortifications at the entrances to their tunnels. They usually don't fight wars of aggression or go campaigning (at least I've seldom heard of that). Thus their battles would largely be sieges with them in the defending position. Crossbows - especially the heavy ones are said to have exceeded in siege warfare. Furthermore axes and hammers would be quite fitting for this kind of warfare as in sieges there is a lot of woodwork and construction to be done.
3. If the dwarves were to field a militia instead of a standing army, axes and hammers probably be quite a good idea as in many settings the dwarves are to a large degree miners, smiths and masons - all of which are very familiar with hammers and axe-like tools (pickaxes e.a.).
4. Dwarves equipped with axes and hammers could be a quite deadly force, if they could get in close enough, as the rather long weapons of their opponents would then be rather hindring. With shield like the roman scutum (adjusted to their size of course) they could for example tortoise in close, then brake the formation and charge in. Essentially the good old roman heavily armoured shock infantry.
The problem I see, if you focus too much on the lack of reach, is that with their inherent shortness, they probably couldn't make up the reach as when the dwarves were known to get long weapons, the other races would probably think: 'Why don't we make longer weapons, too, so we'd still have the longer reach?"
Instead of trying to compensate for their weaknesses which they probably never completely can, why not try to push their strengths, which are usually endurance, unmovability, strength, forging and mechanics.
So I would in a field army make them form a shield wall with large shields and hammers or estocs in the first rank, and halberds or pikes in the second rank. Behind that I'd position the crossbowmen and a lot of war-engines. The tactic shoot them as they come to you and when the enemy's close enough charge in close and hack 'em to bits.
As attacking force I'd probably let them build a big war-engine, shoot into the enemy's camp, and make them come to you. If this doesn't work, tortoise in, then charge.
Dwarves aren't Humans, they aren't as territorial as we are, have no nations and rarely if ever fight other Dwarves for real {sport is a different matter}.
Their main enemies are Goblins, Orcs + Kobolds which are even smaller than Goblins.
The supposed enmity with Elves is more a mild dislike over cultural differences than any real hatred that would lead to war - The two races rarely bother each other and when they do tend to trade quite easily as both have something the other needs.
Dwarves and Elves in most fantasy worlds tend to be an order of magnitude rarer than Humanity or Goblinoids - Dwarves are a long lived race with correspondingly lower reproductive rates {they average 350 years old}. Elves even longer {In Tolkien basically Immortal}.
Now you could have evil Human civilizations attack the Dwarves and wipe them out because that's what would most likely happen but the chances are Human civilizations near to Dwarven civilizations will be quite happy to trade with said Dwarves rather than fight them and again it's the Goblinoids and other underground tunneling creatures that Dwarves are most likely to end up in combat situations against.
Oh and yes I know about the Dark Dwarves {Duergar and Derro} but they are even rarer than your standard Dwarf and tend to live much deeper underground - Actual Wars between Dwarves and Duergar/Derro are much much rarer than the regular fights with Goblinoids and Kobolds.
I've never heard of a fantasy setting where Dwarves are are less annoying or rude to Dwarves than any other race. Given their insane antagonism and passion for grudges I would say that they would be at war with anyone proximate to their location. So yes, Dwarves would have to fight Dwarves all of the time.
True, Wolf, but I have a feeling the antagonism and bantering between them ends more with a full on brawl between the dwarves involved, which is then ended with them going together to the nearest pub and boozing up.
Only for a mottly gathering of a few elves, a human, two gnomes and possibly a bard, to stumble into said tavern and get a solid thrashing, because the party upset the DM
...not that I've done this to a party.
SantaMuerte1813 I like how you list races, and then a bard. ;)
A Messer is indeed a great weapon.
BTW, I always thought Dwarves were actually stronger than humans. Most games I've played depict them that way.
I don't know how many times i have come back to the dwarf videos. But, it just feels so good to see them again. I hope for more dwarf videos in the future.
I think that this video was made in excellent form when compared to the real world's history of war and war technology. But it is dubious in relation to... basic knowledge of muscular physiology and its effects on weight moving abilities.
The three primary things to take into consideration involving Dwarf physiology are their lever lengths, body proportions, and muscle belly size. In body building and power lifting the best lifts for the bench involve folk with thick chests and short arms, enabling their muscle levers to exert much greater force in proportion to their available muscle fiber recruitment in comparison to a person with longer arms. The leg movements are the same- men with wide hips, short torso and leg proportions are able to squat and deadlift more. These anatomical proportions match dwarfish physiology in every canon. And, the thickness of their muscle-belly attachment sites also is reliably long in all available art of any dwarf, ever- so they're physiologically perfect for moving heavy objects.
Also, they aren't human beings- with their diets that would kill a man, their muscular fibers are most likely not at all built the way human fibers are. For example, take notice of chimpanzees. They are very similar to humans but have vastly more efficient power-to-muscle-fiber ratio. This is just conjecture but it would add to their already obscene racial advantage in wielding unwieldy weaponry.
Ultimately this gives Dwarfs the ability to wield weapons that no other species can- not even buff body builder looking half orks. The Dwarfish body is physiologically perfect for generating momentum out of obscene weights. This means that the Dwarfs are literally the only race capable of realistically wielding fantasy style huge war-axes and war-hammers with any degree of effectiveness.
I'm absolutely sure that the war axes of typical artistic renditions would kill a man in full plate armor if it struck him squarely in the chest. Dwarfs do not need polearm, because that would put their gargantuan advantage of 100% debuff to opponents' armor out of the picture. Putting the heavy heads of their axes or hammers on a long pole would ruin the fulcrum leverage their small arms can generate with shorter-hafted weapons. The sacrifice of reach is negligible in the extreme as well- their frames enable them to move with ease in stupid heavy armor as they close with their foes.
Thus, their stereotypical settup is, perhaps accidentally, optimized for their anatomy.
forum.powerlifting.ru/uploads/post-15601-093475700%201314466552.jpg
you bring up some interesting points, but with a few thousand extra words. This aint a term paper you can afford to be concise
Trequor, have you ever sent in a term paper, or even exam, with that few words on it? No? Your hyperbole just makes you look incredibly lazy and unfocused.
Your point is well worded and illustrates one of my thought lines while watching this video exactly.
Similarly the effectiveness of a polearm in the hands of a dwarf would be questionable in terms of offence both due to the limited arc of movement due to a lower height and the overall extension of the arms allowing for better leverage and motion of such a long weapon.
I think dwarves would use a mix of weapons, since not every one of them can probably afford quality full plate armour. Their militia, then, would benefit from using halberds in formation and crossbows, to pin the enemy in place, protect the flanks, and counter an occasional big monster, while their professional armoured heavy infantry with shields, axes (if going against armoured opponents) and falchions (if not) moves in for the kill. It's how they play in the majority of strategies, at least.
Very important caveat. The majority of dwarven combat is supposedly going on in short, narrow, tight and low rooved passageways. Not exactly an area conducive for carrying poleaxes.
Axes and crossbows, on the otherhand? Perfect.
And the reason you regularly see maces and axes over swords? Armour penetration. Swords are great, but they have nothing in terms of armour penetration when compared to the likes of axes, hammers, or maces. Considering how heavily armoured dwarves are, and how much extra protection a shield affords them, swords would be significantly less useful in dwarf on dwarf fights. or dwarf on heavily armoured orc fights... maybe not against lightly armoured goblins. but hey, that's what sidearms are for.
eh? not really, what´s the logical thought for axes?
If you carried a spear your enemy wouldn´t be able to evade it.
if the passageway is narrow enough to prevent you from dodging a spear, it's likely to be prohibitively narrow/low rooved to the point where spears are going to be annoying to carry around. can't carry them upright because of low rooves and potentially not even able to turn around due to narrow corridors.
obviously this isn't going to be the case in large caverns, but a) then it's not going to be any harder to dodge a spear anyway. and b) relying on a weapon that reduces maneuverability reduces overall strategical flexibility.
and again, the reason for axes, maces, or hammers over swords is that swords are terrible at penetrating heavy armour. This is going to compounded when fighting shielded opponents in situations where mobility is impeded... such as tunnels/caverns. axes and hammers are much more effective against shields than swords are. The primary reason for swords' prevalence, even in real life history, has little to do with their combat effectiveness and more to do with their ease of carry and ability to wear as side arms.
Realistically, most dwarves with heavy axes, hammers, maces, or even spears, are also going to wear a short sword as a backup. especially for when fighting in spaces that are prohibitively narrow. (take Spartans' and other ancient greeks' use of both the dory and xiphos as an example)
radred609 Hammers and maces don't penetrate armour, they squash it. And power is highly dependent on acceleration and distance, a dwarf has no room to get momentum going in any kind of swingy weapon (axes are even worse). A good thrusting sword would do very well for a dwarf who lost his polearm
trequor , if you're arguing that warhammers and maces don't technically count as having good armour penetration because they're technically blunt weapons you're missing the point harder than a cave troll in a pillow factory.
most of these weapons take considerably less room to use than a long sword (as a relatively arbitrary example), especially considering how much extra leverage you get from having a long handle as opposed to the shorter sword handle. And, as i said earlier, having a short sword as a side arm is to be expected anyway. regardless of primary weapon of choice.
the primary issue with spears and polearms isn't that they're bad weapons, it's that they further limit overall maneuverability in an environment that is already limiting to maneuverability. (and even more so if the cave/tunnel roof is low)
radred609 I disagree, a good thrusting sword or small spear takes much less room to use than a swingy mace. It matter how much room to the side or roof you have with those weapons. All you need is the direction of the enemy to stab. Maces and axes require room to move and swing and to be energy efficient you have to keep the momentum up. Difficult to do in close quarters.
in the eragon series dwarfs actually use bows that are very small made of horn which makes them more powerful for the lower draw length
Really cool video! I love the way you rationalized this.
In the battle of the five armies they actually used shields and polarms as you can see here:
vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/edain-mod/images/3/3b/Iron_Hills_Phalanx.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160807191936
Those seem to be spears/pikes, not poleaxes.
schmid1.0 I remember that battle, dwarves forming a battle line of shields, looking amazing. I expected elves to shower enemies with arrows....instead they use dwarves as protection to, quite literaly, jump into battle.
I was disappointed.
My favourite part of that is when the elves "help" by jumping over them, basically scuppering the entire point of their defensive formation.
maybe it was on purpose? Since according to the lore, the elves and dwarves don't work together. ;)
+Robbedem The issues with that are twofold:
- Firstly, this was supposed to be the elves actually choosing to help the dwarves, instead of buggering off again.
- Second, they basically screwed themselves over in the process - since they could have easily stood behind the dwarves and rained arrows into the orcs.
we just gonna ignore cultural impact? sure i agree that axes dont make much sense but swords? in a largely subterranean race?
weapons of self defense would be hammers, picks, and shields owing to their cultural focus on mining and smithing. weapons of warfare would be shields, crossbows, and the spear family because thats what works in tight tunnel systems. shield/spear combo would be too powerful a weapon system for a short stocky people fighting 95% of the time in tunnels to ignore.
By that logic Dwarves should have picks and the sort of sharpened shovels carried by the Spetsnaz. In tight mining tunnels a spear makes no sense at all. In a tunnel two dwarves could form up with a shield like a Scutum and with short powerful jabs from sharpened shovels and picks they would be an impenetrable meat grinder.
But how is a dwarf travelling to the surface world going to mortally insult the elves if not by cutting down their trees?
James Domec the would probably have a type of shovel spear
Something that could do both
But we are all assuming that their weapons would be the same as what’s useful.
They would also have the have things to hunt and farm
They would probably eat moles and shrews which tunnel. So they probably wouldn’t have any kind of ranged attack at all besides maybe nets
They are far more likely to spear fish
With the shovel spear
So what I am saying so I really like your shovel spear idea
And he ignores they live in caves, where reach weapons will be hard to use due to short ceilings. There's a reason Vietnam Tunnel Rats preferred pistols over rifles. Rifles were harder to use in tight quarters.
@@shattergraves your thinking of Mattocks which are actually traditionally fairly common Dwarvish weapons in most fantasy settings
2:13 in fantasy books of the Inheritance Cycle by C. Paolini (Eragon, Eldest, Brigingr and Inheritance, strongly recommended) dwarves made small bows out of Urgals (creatures inspired by orcs) horns.
Heavy weapons like axes and hammers require less leverage to use effectively, as the pressure per square inch on impact is huge no matter what, but thin finesse weapons like spears and swords require more leverage (longer arms) to control, especially when you involve parrying and readjusting the weapon in mid-swing. A human with long arms is going to be better at fencing with a light/finesse weapon (which is why men are better at fencing than women), so a dwarf with short arms is better off doubling down on a simple, unparryable weapon like a hammer and to rely on unstoppable offense.
You're forgetting that the choice of weapon is also influenced by the living environment and available resources. You cannot use bows effectively underground and access to wood is more difficult than it would be for elves, that poses issues if only in terms of ammunition. That being said, as a dwarf fan, i enjoyed the video very much ^^.
And the string for the bows?
fine high tensile cable.
According to Dwarf Fortress there is a type of underground crop called a "pig tail" (not the same as something from an actual pig). It can be used to make thread or ale.
If the town is not under siege, then woodcutters can be sent up to the surface; any complaints about aboveground work can be ignored. This wood will be used to make stuff *before* the goblins arrive to besiege the town. Stone is of course much preferred to make anything; the decision on which material to use for what is made by the foredwarf.
That works
Iron spears are great for stabbing just waste full and heavier then needed.
Are you forgetting the fact that due to their typical metalworking trade Dwarves carry hammers as tools? I know a smith hammer and a war hammer aren't the same thing. Perhaps they are traditionally or culturally attached to them. It could even enable a Dwarf to evade some Mickey Mouse no-weapons law. "Them's just me tools, mate."
I still love the Dwarfs of Total war: Warhammer. The Orcs are coming with their massive army, shoot them into the ground with cannons. Elves are coming with their flying creatures, make the cannons ready. The norscas launch an attack with Mammoths, shoot them down with cannons. Same for the humans and Vampire. So you can see, Dwarfs are my favorite Fantasy creatures. But yeah, I agree on what you have wrote.
I'm so glad you upped your audio game in the newer videos :D
9:24 "if dwarves existed" FeelsBadMan
In fantasy settings with common full plate I think hammers/maces would still be more useful than a dedicated cutter.
rryuan but in fantasy settings armor is pretty shite
Only standard armor. Enchanted armor or dwarven made armor is usually said to be quite sturdy. Imagine not a chainmail but a full plate made from Adamantium. Good luck getting through that easily.
Why make a suit of adamantium armor when you could out a unit with adamantium spears that easily penetrate enemy armor?
Edit: We mean Adamantine. Adamantium is Marvel territory.
only in games :=
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamant
Marvel hardly came up with Adamantium, they just defined the properties of their Adamantium to fit their narrative, but it is basically the same very hard, almost indestructible substance as it is in many other settings.
The 40k setting also uses the word Adamantium, mainly used in areas with high mechanical stress or for superior protection as in the Tactical Dreadnought armour aka Terminator armour.
Anyway, you should already know from steel weapons and steel armor why you would want Adamantium/Adamantine/Adamant armor, because to protect from one metal you need a metal of very similar properties to do that. Lead armor, for example, even if we could ignore its weight, would not be very good against steel weapons. So, only Adamatium armor will protect against Adamantium spear tips and since we can't rule out the possibility of inter-dwarvish warfare, this might very well be a possibility. However, just as with full plate armor being only a thing for the richer and more powerful people in the medieval ages, armor made from Adamantium might only be a thing for the richer dwarves, whereas Adamatium spearheads or weaponheads might be a thing that most dwarves could afford or even need to afford. Usually, the only thing in most settings keeping armies from being clad in full Adamatium armor is its implied rareness and difficulty of processing and manufacture, but that still wouldn't make Adamatium armor impossible for those that can afford the cost.
I can'twait to Orcs and Uruk-hai, I hope you complete this series of videos!
Most certainly ^_^
Yaaaay! I'll watch every single one of them! An remember the metatro- Oh no, taht's for another channel....Farewell? I don't know if you have an "official outro"
Shadiversity Oi 'ow about da orc boyz? Ye can't make one for da uruks if ya won' make one for me boyz
Natural Strength, height and reach in one package, yeah that's a nasty combination to deal with
Headdie on TH-cam
It depends on the source material. Tolkiens' orcs are shorter than men, many as high as hobbits are.
6:49 executioner's sword perhaps?
7:41why do i find that picture hilarious?
9:23 Gimli does not approve
in D&D almost every dwarf had spend some time in mining, this is essential also the fight in long unfinished halls or tunnels (with enemies like gnomes, trolls, orcs, Spiders....) some of their enemies are tall with an extrem range, for a dwarf is it very important to Keep them distant with a long pike, but when the enemy dodges the pike, the only way to survive is to come ,protected by a shield, so Close as possible to Smash legs knees feet with a small but strong weapon=axes, hammer,mace weapons they really know to handle (weapons that resemble their tools) the halbert is a stupid weapon for tunnel warfare
Now I'm imagining 300 reenacted by dwarves wielding halberds over an impenetrable shield wall, drawing falchions for close-quarters combat . . . .
They'd be choppin' up mothafuckas left and right.
For the final charge at the end of the movie you would hear “DU BEKAR!!!” Lol
Khazukan , Kazakit´ha!
In the Hobbit they had Pikes n sht
Not sure that the archery/crossbow points make sense. If you're storing the same amount of energy by pulling a draw a shorter distance then you need more strength. If both humans and dwarfs can exert X (Since he says equivilant strength) Newtons, and it takes X Newtons to draw a human sized crossbow over 0.5M and store Y energy while a dwarven crossbow is, say 0.3M, then it'd be impossible to get the same stored energy. X and Y can't be equal if the draw length is shorter.
It works for either bow or crossbows. I don't know much about crossbow engineering. My point is, he was saying that because dwarvs were shorter, they would have a shorter draw length, due to shorter weapons and with equal strength they could use crossbows/bows more effective. I was saying that the physics don't add up.
"If you're storing the same amount of energy by pulling a draw a shorter distance then you need more strength."
But you _are_ using more strength, relatively speaking. You're using the equivalent of 0.5m of drawing energy (i.e. "X Newtons") over just 0.3m, meaning you're using more energy per metre drawing the shorter bow. This is how they can maintain equivalent potential energy at full draw.
His argument was that dwarves could use material that stores more energy over a shorter draw length (e.g. spring steel). It would take the same strength to draw a spring steel short bow over 0.3m as it would a yew longbow over 0.5m (hypothetically speaking of course).
You're missing something: Crossbows are made of different material, at least at the height of their use. It is a known historical fact that a spring steel crossbow can store more maximum energy than a wooden or composite bow. So if the longbow stores X newtons at full draw, while the crossbow stores X + Y at full draw, then it will store X at less than full draw. Later crossbow designs had multiple notches for the string. A partial draw was used for lower power rapid fire-usually against lighter infantry at shorter range. Full draw was for penetrating armor, longer range, or throwing a solid iron bolt instead of an iron-tipped wooden bolt.
However Shad is also missing something: steel crossbows were usually drawn with more muscles-the back and legs in addition to the arms, that's what the stirrup was for.
Now, dwarves are commonly known for mechanical expertise. They might well employ some sort of low-power repeating crossbow like the Chu-no-ku. Oh, wait... Varric Tethras' Bianca from Dragon Age!
I think Cornered Fox said the same as this, but anyway
That would be true, but it is assumed that humans and drarves have the same strength. So it's impossible to be "Using more strength".
It would take more strength to draw it. Just the same amount of energy. Try carrying a 10KG rock over a kilometer. You could do it. Now try carrying a 10Tonne rock over a meter. Same amount of energy, but you'd probably lack the strength.
Strength and energy are different things.
Shad dwarves while smaller would be closer to goblins in the fact that they’re less likely to be found in open areas or even on the surface. Dwarves prior to Smaug and the lonely mountain would have been found in mines and caves/below ground. Dwarves would have used the shorter weapons like axes and short swords to allow for movement within the mines. This would have meant you would be correct on the short bows as well but axes and hammers would be perfectly valid and readily available in the mine/blacksmithing area as well as likely standard issue items for any dwarf that would be mining or setting up timbers.
@Kevin Warburton Yes, generally most dwarves on surface would have axes or mattocks.
I love how when you say "bulky sword", you show a "The count" from Albion... and I have this sword, it is light, nimble and very impressively quick.
That was actually one of the most enjoyable videos of yours that I watched and that's saying something.
Thanks mate, I'm honoured you enjoyed ^_^
The problem with some of the weapons suggested is they assume being out in the open. Dwarves, at least according to Dungeons & Dragons lore, which is derived from Tolkein, historically live underground, either in hillside or in the mountains. Dwarves are known for mining ores and using that to make weapons. The issue is that underground areas don't always give you a lot of room to work with for swinging your weapon. Hammers make sense in that they grow out of a weapon they commonly already use - dwarven weaponsmiths and armorsmiths are highly sought after, and so converting it into a weapon of war is a natural extension. Axes somewhat act the same way but slice and slash rather than bash, good for when you're trying to get through flesh, like that of an orc. As for the crossbow vs standard bow argument, bows work with archery, which means you actually aim higher and it arcs toward your target (thus the term "archery"), whereas crossbows are more similar to firearms: a relatively straight horizontal path towards its target. Low ceilings in mines make crossbows much more useful. So all in all, based simply on the build of the character, I'd agree with the suggestions, but you have to take environmental factors into account as well.
Personally, as a Swedish person whom's grossly studied about mythology, I have dwarves be a bit more rare in my settings. They look a lot more like they would in ancient mythology (Something closer to a mix between human and goblin.) than Tolekin's work.
Sure, I can understand that. In earlier versions of the game (like 1st Edition AD&D), there was a good mix of fantasy such as Tolkein mixed in with what we got from various mythologies - kobolds and ogres, for example. The only memory I have of what a Dwarf was like at all outside Tolkein was a creature that was known for smithing, specifically weaponsmithing and armorsmithing.
dwarves also have huge cocks. Little known fact.
Dwarves also tend to be technologically superior in some settings, with some portrayals having complicated machinery and even steam or combustion engines.
Unless Gnomes also exist in that setting, them they get all the advanced clockwork stuff while dwarfs are just mason's and skilled blacksmiths; good at shaping the metal, less so at putting complex pieces together.
In the game Myth, the dwarf's weapons of choice are actually explosive powders, either in the form of placed satchels or thrown as Molotov cocktails.
Explosives have many applications in mining and digging, trades dwarves are famously skilled in, and their knowledge of metallurgy gives them the knowledge to make such things.
This is not without it's problems, as dwarves in that game are practically synonymous with friendly fire and can just as easily blow up allies as well as enemies, but I figure it is still worth mentioning as a potentially useful option that would likely exist within the dwarven arsenal.
Imagine the look on a group invading a dwarven mine when they come across a dwarven shield wall bristling with spears! That would be hilarious!
Very common image created by writers.
Jack Hand what writers are you reading and where can i find them?
The Hobbit might be a bad movie, but it did a good work of showing how that would work.
It is called a "Roman Legion" :p
A friendly hint, get a better microphone and/or get it closer.
or sound absorption on the walls off-camera
Get a microphone. (period). I think he's using the standard/stock mic on his camera.
A rug wouldn't hurt either. Anything to dampen the echo/bounce in the room.
Why? I can hear him perfectly clearly and I was listening to this video from halfway across the room on a crappy cheap laptop from Argos.
Get your ears syringed.
The strange part on this one is, he uses a clip-on mic in some videos (like "Why character classes in RPGs are stupid"). Obviously these videos sound way better, so it is not even the lack of a mic, he just does not use it on some videos for whatever reason.
A friend recommended this to me and I gotta say I love it.
I can really imagine a dwarven shield wall with polearms and rectangular shields
The dwarfs could have hold the bow very diagonally, almost parallel to the floor to solve the height issue.
also they should practice a lot of wrestling/grappling
naturally--- a plate armored dwarf should be a nightmare in a grapple
On the contrary, if you're wearing plate armour, the last thing you want to do is end up in a grapple. That'd just greatly increase the chance that the enemy will be able to bypass your armour by sticking a dagger into a weak point.
That's assuming youv'e lost control of the grapple.
Someone with a Dwarf's mass and center of gravity would be nightmarish to have to wrestle. You couldn't stick him with a dagger until he figured out how to get your hand out of your mouth.
Grappling isn't a one-dimensional tug-of-war where one is in control and the other isn't. Also, if you don't end up in a grapple in the first place, you can't lose it. If you're the more heavily armoured one, you have everything to gain from keeping the fight at a distance, making it harder for either one of you to strike weak points.
Note that most of the dwarves you're showing in your pictures actually have human-sized arms and torsos (or at least, comic-book muscular arms and torsos) - ie, their arms reach pretty much down to their knees when they're in "dramatic pose" mode, and in mid-to-upper thigh when standing upright. It's just their legs that are shorter.
As such, while I think your points are well-made, the actual dwarves you are describing aren't the ones that you're showing - those guys have just as much reach as an adult human - it's just lower to the ground.
I was looking for a comment like this!
to be completely fair, what he is showing in the pictures most of the time is - Slayers. Out of warhammer fantasy.
Slayers are like any other dwarf except that they've taken an oath to die in battle, and seek greater and greater challenges.
Which means you'd eventually find them single handedly off-ing giants as well as dragons. What you need to keep in mind here is that the dwarves in warhammer fantasy are INSANELY strong compared to humans. Which in turn would mean that if they use shorter weapons as 1-h axes for instance they'd be cleaving full plate armored knights in half. But still have the speed/agility to have a high rate of strikes.
But they are still smaller with shorter reach than the humans of that setting. Just WAY bulkier.
Also imagine yourself with shorter arms with a really long weapons. RIP you whenever anything with a Shield comes to you.
Yup, Warhammer Dwarfs are basically slightly shorter gorillas: very broad, long arms and stumpy legs.
For a one handed weapon I would of said a flail. Gives them extended reach and with the equivalent strength of a human and shorter swing length could be used to devastating effectiveness. Especially when swung while being behind shield
If you wanna tell Gimli all this, Shad, I'm not gonna stop ya mate
Dwarves from the witcher series use poleaxes don't they?
maybe he hasn't played any of the witcher games
Witcher games know their shit, almost all the weapons used are realisticly used with the exception of the wild hunt
Yeah, atleast in the 3rd game
Shad has reviewed Kaer Morhen so i'm pretty sure he has played the games, at least the 3rd one.
No, they are not used realistically. They are realistically looking, but not used. Not to mention that swords in game are longswords, even those that are supposed to be one-handed or greatswords.
"Give a bit of meat on that blade" - Shad, 2017
That's called Shish kababa
noise reduction surfaces, definitely worth investing in (even if it's a couple of spare curtains/towels against the non camera facing walls).
That's a lot of sharpness and echo in the audio.
Imagine having to fight a dwarven halberd phalanx
Before I watch the video: I'm gonna say spears, halberds, polaxes, and other polarms.
Purely because their short stature dictates a lack of reach in combat - meaning they'd probably take up weapons that aim to counter that disadvantage.
Now I'm watching it: Their draw length for bows isn't gonna be amazing, but their strength would allow for higher poundage bows - they'd be able to draw a bow maybe two or three times the weight of a human, so offsetting the low draw distance of their stocky builds. Basically, I imagine their bows to have the draw weight of a crossbow, but with the same draw length - essentially taking a crossbow, but making it an ordinary bow.
"Perfect weapons for Dwarves" - Fuckin' called it!
I absolutely agree.
Though, I'd add - a spear and shield for a human might cover say... 70% of their body. For a dwarf, the same sized shield would cover 100% of their body. Give a Dwarf a Roman Scutum and a spear, and the Scutum is covering their ENTIRE body, so if they use a spear as a Roman would use a Gladius or Spartha (Thrusting from behind the shield.) it makes up for the lack of reach, whilst protecting them... basically completely.
Only problem I can see is - a Roman would hold the Gladius behind the shield, so as to cover the direction he's gonna thrust it - but if you've got a spear, even a human is gonna have to hold it outside of the shield. For a dwarf, this is worse, it makes it easy for the enemy to see where you're attacking, and they could EASILY parry it.
I mean, you can easily hold a gladius behind a scutum, and thrust from that position whilst your opponents can't see the blade, but with shorter arms, Dwarves couldn't do that.
Is a bit of heresy unless you think about that. ;-)
Sanguis Dominus However! Dwarves are often depicted as wearing heavy armor, and living underground. Thus should dwarves ever fight each other, they would likely field weapons that are more effective against armor- warhammers and maces and such. Also, in the cramped confines of tunnels, bows would likely be less effective than crossbows, due to their arc of fire and overall less compact design.
Also since even basic dwarf infantry seems to be able to wear mail and a lot of them wear straight up plate armor, it's not stretching the imagination to think that, instead of using spears and halberds and such to make up for their lack of reach (though they might still utilize those in formations), they would simply use their heavy armor to nullify their reach disadvantage and go to work with hammer, axe, and pick.
A polearm or a spear would suit a dwarf in their tunnels far better than axes yes. Moreover, their usually tanned complexions and big hair and beard doesn't make much sense for a race living primarily underground, if you look at why we have hair in the first place evolutionary, and they would likely have rather pallid, sickly skins, what with no sunlight. And also miners in tunnels, living off likely mushrooms and such underground, blind cave fish and such, you'd probably end up with a rather wiry kind of creature. The low level of light in there would probably alter both their eyes and their ears to follow suit, sort of in the evolutionary direction of a bat, hairless, pale with spears... oh look, we made a goblin. Which are also appropriately a lot closer to the original myths of dwarves from Scandinavia that what Tolkien turned them into...
Sacremas I think that the strength aspect comes mainly from dwarves being skilled manufacturers. As for skin tone, it always depends on the character and most artworks depict certain ideas. Also dwarves would probably be quite the traders to obtain more and higher quality food and thus venture outside. (f.e. The hidden entrance to Moria with elvish inscription as well as dialogue point to that, where Tolkien's concerned).
Goblins are an entirely different species in the LoTR universe so the last argument is kind of redundant and they mostly are what you described them as
Roxanne Stride I am talking about a realistic fashion of what a dwarf would end up as, not races and such. If we take D&D you have the Duergar race, an evil drow style offshoot of dwarves that are a lot like what I described, and also much closer to pre-Tolkien depictions of dwarves. The pronounciation of their name is also very close to Dverg, which is Norwegian for dwarf, perhaps not coincidentally.
Roxanne Stride also even with their trade most dwarves would spend the majority of their time in their cavern homes, receiving very little sunlight over their lives. Given traditional animosity of elves, humans and dwarves it is unlikely that trade would cover the majority of their foodstuffs either. And no, it depends little on the artist and the like, find any color depiction of a regular dwarf post Tolkien, and they will if not be elaborately bearded (few exceptions, like Varric in Dragon Age) at least have a very healthy skin tone, if not a full on tan, which you would not have if you (and a hundred generations usually as well) spent your whole life indoors under maybe torchlight
Sacremas I acknowledge your arguments but maybe we could find common ground by saying that it depends on the clan of dwarf and their traditions. It would rule out neither. The Eddas and the mythology they create are often overshadowed by Tolkien but the development has to be blamed on culture. The stories are simply not as accessible as LoTR- even nowadays finding an entire Edda in a language you are confident enough in is complicated and a lot gets lost in translation.
...trying to find my way back into the original argument (sorry about that, cellphones be damned).
I found a lot of artwork that took realistic skin tones into consideration. As for beards/hair: it depends on how the universe is set up, in the end. Did they come into existence via a god and lived beneath the rocks ever since? or is there some nomadic history behind that.
But maybe that is just my personal take on that.
Tolkien did not try to create a new perfect dwarf stereotype, he simply developed a different setting. We should be glad that Gimli is the go to and not Grimms' version however kid appropriate they are
you know *NOTHING* of metal work if you think that Dwarves COULDN'T have tanned leathery skin! LOL
A sword in the belt of a dwarf, would drag along the floor when he walks. So the sword could only be sheathed on his back
I prefer elves over dwarves. Elves are fairer, faster, and have long hair.
*immediately gets slaughtered by the internet*
@Teun vanderLugt I hate *that* depiction of elves. Where they exist to be better than everybody
In Middle-earth, unlike in most other fantasy settings, we have to bear in mind that the Dwarves wouldn't usually have a real height or reach disadvantage: they'd be mostly facing Orcs, the bulk of whom weren't much taller than them, if at all. Now the Uruks would be a problem - the Moria Orcs were led by tall Uruks as big as a Man and what not. But if memory serves, only Saruma's Uruks walked straight as a Man on top of being just as tall. Other Uruks, including Azog, Bolg, Grishnakh and others, had ape-like stances that reduced their height advantage.
While Tolkien did make axes the quintessential Dwarvish weapon, he described Dáin's folk as using two-handed mattocks (so essentially a form of pollaxe), shields, and short swords as side-arms.
Anyway, great video!
Im going to throw a guess in before watching the video.
SPEARS!
eh, close enough
Durn quit off actually. ;p
not even close, they are both in completely different categories. spears = thrown weapons.
pole axes = stabbing slashing weapons.
alright calm down there kiddo, I was wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd love to see an update to this, curious if you're thoughts have changed over the years (dwarves are my favorite!)
CasuallyCompetitive my favorite to
Late to the party (just watched video) however i would like to add my half penny to this:). So i agree with pikes or halberds for dwarves and infact believe in LOTR battle of five armies they show dwarves with these. Now onto axes and war hammers. I believe they are infact good choices for dwarves. A dwarf is strong and sturdy yet short with a reach disadvantage. In close combat it would be far more advantages to close the distance putting his longer armed foe at the disadvantage with a short well armored opponet within thier guard. As mentioned dwarves are excellent metal workers with amazing armor. Inside right next to anything taller puts that opponent in a hard pressed position while the dwarf with an axe or hammer can repeatedly land blows extremely difficult to defend againts on legs, hips, lower torso. So a dwarf would want to close the distance using his small sturdy and tanky self with quick burst of speed to get inside the guard and pummel the opponents legs with powerful blows. The axe and warhammer actually suit a dwarf very well. If he uses a sword and tries to keep distance then he will remain at a disadvantage since his opponent can mantain a longer distance easily. For long distance pikes, halbreds, spears, crossbows, bows are great, however at close quarters i believe dwarves would want to close the distance with thier armor and shield and use a weapon that can deliver knee and hip debilitating blows as quick as possible.
to compensate for their height dwarves should have polearms. or spears or pikes.
a dwarve would be an op phalanx unit. if they have the same shields the greek states had. hence they would have huge full body coverage shield and long pikes.
and for side arm is a rapier.
i commented this before i watched the video btw
Swazi Hitler 27 The idea of a Dwarf wielding a rapier just feels... wrong, it's too undwarfy (Talking about fantasy dwarfs, if you're a person who has dwarfism use whatever you want)
They would have problems carrying a rapier on the belt even when alone let alone in a tight phalanx formation, so no way they'd use them as side weapons.
I wpuld assume dwarves would almost always start with a charging attack and wpuld be extreemly proficient at parying... They would get in your space and you would not not beable to step back fast enough to take a second swing
Got one would right i thought you did not have a o button
good video. you missed a point, culture, culture could why one race favors a type of weapon of another. and an ax is something they would use in a mine. i looking forward to seeing the next video.
work = force * distance
If 'strength' directly determines draw force, a long-armed human will charge a human-sized maximum-weight bow with more potential energy than a short-armed equal-strength dwarf can charge a dwarf-sized equal-weight bow. If the dwarf could, by awkward calisthenics, fully draw the human-sized bow, then surely by the same calisthenics the human could draw an ogre-sized bow. The human always retains an advantage in bow energy equal to the ratio of arm lengths.
If 'strength' determines muscle force, draw force will depend on mechanical advantage. A short arm has more mechanical advantage at the hand than an equally 'strong' long arm. The leverage penalty is proportional to arm length, thus exactly cancels the draw-distance advantage. In this case, a dwarf will deliver more draw force but over a smaller distance, and charge his smaller higher-weight bow to equal potential as the human charges his larger lower-weight bow.
The second case is probably the best fit for dwarves. For equivalent muscle biology, force is proportional to muscle cross sectional area. If dwarves have shorter limbs of equal diameter to humans, then they have equal muscle cross section and equal muscle force, and equal peak bow energy.
The first case perhaps describes hobbits: shorter limbs of smaller diameter than humans, thus smaller cross section and smaller muscle force. If hobbits are exactly proportional to humans, the situation for them is actually worse: muscle cross section varies as the _square_ of the diameter. So an exact half-sized halfling would have twice the mechanical advantage, but only one quarter the muscle force. They deliver half the draw force to half the draw distance, thus can produce only one quarter of human or dwarf peak bow energy.
Thank you. I was scanning the comments hoping I didn't have to write all that.
you've made some valid points on most choices. but I'm going to have to disagree with you on the long sword. i say this purely because I don't think dwarves could draw a good sized long sword, or any side arm with a distinct reach advantage for that matter, from the sheath. I'd go more towards a dagger or a short sword. for them. just imagine how annoying it would be to have to fight those little guys in close proximity .
Then they have to have the leverage and highcenter of gravity to make the best use of the cuts and strokes a long-sword can do. Let alone any up-close fencing is going to be tough for the guys cause they will probably be almost always fighting targets taller than them. Long-sword *can* stab, but other weapons are better. His spear/pike/poleaxe/halberd point is dead on.
But the dwarves loved theira xes and maces and hammers cause they doubled as tools. :D If you spend your entire life beating metal into shape with a smith's hammer, then switch to a club or warhammer, the muscle memory and general principles are so close, the guy is basically already a master at it.
Thomas McGraw throwing daggers
The dwarf would have to find a tactic to get in that close before he loses his head. Daggers are very poor weapons against longer blades.
Jack Hand what else would you guys suggest. no dwarf is going to be able to unsheath any longsword with a blade long enough to make up for the reach disadvantages they have. best way to counter that that I can think of would be to get close and make the other guys advantage a moot point. I'm hoping maybe someone in the comment section is smarter than me and think of something that will work
R.L. Stein had a character that just wore bad ass armour and basically foot ball tackled, punched and kicked using his spikes on the armour.
I'm quite late to the party, but will attempt to make a few points in defense of the good old dwarven axe and hammer here. Therefore I'm going to clarify a few things:
Firstly by axe and hammer I'm not refering to one handed axes/warhammers explicitly. In truth I'm talking about everything with a axe or hammer axe.
Secondly I'm going to assume the equivalent strength means that they can apply a higher force which combined with the shorter length over which they can apply it means generating the same kinetic energy as a human. So a Dwarf will defeat you in a pushing or towing battle, but hi strikes are as hard as yours.
This brings me to two conclusions regarding their use of axes and such.
The higher strength (in terms of force) combined with their lower point of weight makes them perfectly suited for grappling, or indeed hooking. The latter usualy requires something similar to an axe.
The other point regards the disadvantage of "headed" weapons. Their far point of weight creates a lever effect increasing the amount of force the user needs to enact for keeping control. The established higher strength thus allows the dwarf a better control over top heavy weapons. This might even allow them to get away with much longer axes than humans use.
Dang dude. Dat echo. Your more recent videos sound so much better, lol.
Traditionally in fantasy Dwarves tend to wear heavy armour which is why they tend to carry hammers and axes as they are better for fighting against heavy armour
Plus they mostly fight in the mines and caves. It is why pole arm isn't a thing.
I tend to give my dwarves short swords or pole-arms.
Tomas Rocha Martins Short swords? That's probably the worst thing to give to a dwarf
Think gladii. Short stocky creatures with scutum-sized shields covering most of them in a relatively dense formation stabbing you in the legs and lower torso.
Tomas Rocha Martins A dwarf's polearm would have to be significantly longer then a human's to be effective when fighting human sized targets which are the norm in fantasy settings.
A human loses range by the fact that they have to aim down. A dwarf does not. I doubt they would have to make their polearms significantly longer.
Tomas Rocha Martins It wouldn't decrease range too much and besides why use melee weaponry when muskets are better
Just wondering why you discounted spears. Being short and stocky could well reduce their shoulder movement meaning simpler wespons like spears, axes and hammers would work better for them. Given their large shields, would they not fight in more if a phalanx/roman shield wall style way in battle meaning spears for teach them short stabbing weapons for up close. Would the large shield also negate some of the reach disadvantage meaning they fight by just marching stubbornly forward behind their shield until the can close the distance and bring their shorter weapons to bear which is in character (inexorable advance).
Yep. A good old Macedonian style pike phalanx is what dwarves need. Supported by units of pavise crossbows.
@@Loalrikowki Yes, totally useful in the mine.. are they foldable?
@@TheRezro Why would dwarves be fighting in the mines? You fall back to a larger chamber behind the exploratory tunnels where you have the benefit of engineered defensive emplacements.
@@Loalrikowki Because only idiot rely on territorial advantage. There is famous Chinese tell about impenetrable gate here, what didn't help because enemy breach the walls. Yes, you should use it when you can, but you need be capable to fight everywhere. Because what use of big chamber if enemy cut your supply lines and you can't push him pack to block his? Seriously people. Strategy 101.
...I've been working on my own high fantasy novel series, and the dwarves in it use pike formations and halberds as their primary methods of melee attacks, and crossbows/cannons for ranged combat. Their front ranks typically use square tower shields and falchions. You basically predicted the same things I did. Holy crap.
I'd love to see something on short races and cavalry.
Awesome Video! I still think that Dwarves are suited with axes because they like to get right up into the face of there enemy. They don't like to keep them at reach. Also, dwarves smallness like you said would help them have a lot of strength behind an axe cut because they don't have to worry about balance as much since they are so close to the ground and are so stocky. They easily can overpower the defense of someone by breaking their weapon or even since there short hit at there legs or lower body very easy. It's hard to defend yourself sometimes when a small person comes at you that is most likely as strong as you but now you're trying to defend your legs and trying not to fall backward and such. But I do agree with your Video. I just think it would depend on the individual dwarf as well. They obviously like axes and hammers. Maybe some do use swords and halberds as well!? who knows in fantasy. Also, they would have such powerful armor vs a human they could easily get up close to someone with any weapon they choose. Again Great Video. I am a big fan of yours. I am also a big fan of Tolkien and it sounds like you are too! I loved your comment "papa Tolkien"! Thanks for Video!
So, I shared this video on in a D&D group on Facebook, and it created a bit of a shitstorm of opinions.
There were a lot of people who agreed with you, or mostly agreed, but with some small points that they differed from you on. There were also a lot of people whose comments could be summed up as "Why are you using logic in fantasy? You ruin my preferred fantasy settings when you do that with your own!"
Among the more agreeable people though, we came up with an idea:
Imagine Dwarves mimicking the Roman Empire in their type of equipment, government and society, organization, etc., but with the idea that they are still primarily subterranean. Gladius, scutum, pila, pugio, caligae, the whole Roman thing, but shorter.
The issue of reach was still an issue, so we figured that, perhaps, they reserve such weapons for the relatively few times when they would be in such tight and confined spaces as to make their limited reach less of an issue. Otherwise, we imagined that they would more or less be like the Triarii from the Pre-Marian legions, but with everything else in the Imperial era style.
With their existing prowess with siege warfare and their underground dwellings, I would think that Dwarves could, if they set their mind to it, pretty much collapse an entire city as a show of force, or insert a large force of troops within said city from beneath.
Ha ha ha, I'd love to see some of the comments. Is the facebook group public, if so a link would be greatly appreciated ^_^
I hope the link works.
facebook.com/groups/DnD5th/permalink/755629831281193
it didn't, it is private, apparently.
The people who say "Why are you using logic in fantasy?" are fucking idiots. This stupid discussion's happened 1000 times and every time the answer's the same: LotR, D&D, etc. copy-paste 90% of their content from the real world. Humans are just humans and all other bipedal races are "like humans but...". As a result, things can be expected to obey the rules of the real world unless explicitly stated otherwise. It's the difference between realism and verisimilitude.
Fuck. Sorry for the bad link, guys. :[
Dwarven Phalanx. Dwarves with tower shiled scaled to their size ( same amount of material but thicker by virtue of being shorter) armed with spears. Greater endurance means the formation could be held for longer and push further.
Love the channel Shad. A suggestion to improve audio. Echo-ish.
when it comes to one-handed weapons, why not maces?
a mace would be better for armored enemies. . . and just as good with unarmoured. but many think of the mace as a cruel weapon, since it doesn't kill as quickly or cleanly as a sword or axe.
true, but a coup de grace qith a mace is still as effective, if not more so :P and as for it being "cruel", its war!
Reach.
nothing saying you cant have a long mace, or morningstar, and hell, if shields an issue, bring a flail
Long maces are significantly less effective due to leverage issues, you would be better off with warhammers, which remain effective even as pole hammers.
That said, Warhammers are drastically less effective than spears, poleaxes, and swords on unarmored opponents. Meanwhile poleaxes are about as effective as warhammers on armored opponents.
As for flails, they are an unwieldy weapon that is as much a danger to yourself and your friends than your enemies, if not more. There is next to no evidence that they were ever used militarily on any kind of verifiable scale.
I was writing an essay here but hem o browser reloaded, so I'll give the short answer. Dwarves prefer man to man fight, crossbows are better cuz they can be shot multiple times in a mid range-ish fight, plus, archery is about accuracy, not speed, and don't have such a thing. Halberds, dwarves are too short thus unnable to handle them properly. Swords can balance their lack or height but only a fool would use it. As you said, shorter arms = more strength, and that's the why axes and hammers are beter for dwarves. This type of armors is design in a way that it amplifies the strength of those who wields it. Dwarves get this doubled. They have short arms wich means, more strength and they use weapons that amplifies this great amount of damage. While a human would need severe cuts from his swords, only one hit from the Dwarf's axe would be more than enough
The best example I can think of is Dain Ironfoot's troops in Battle of The Five Armies. They have good Shields and pikes. Their strength allows them to use a very long pike/spear in one hand, and their bodies make for an excellent shield wall formation. Also, if you look at the swords they use, they are long with a weighted angular bit at the end for extra power.
I was wondering, could you eventualy make a summery of all conclusions? I Would love to see what you think :)
How does a half-ork even happen?
Depends on the setting and the lore in general.
Often it's associated with Orc raiders raping their victims, but that is far from the only way. Merely that is the most common assumption because the Orc are treated as "always evil" in many settings for the sake narrative ease (Lazy story telling).
Other possible options relate to more primitive humans and orc tribes unifying or having semi-peaceful relationships resulting in genuine relationships forming between individuals.
Some settings even try to pass them off as their own race crafted by a god trying to mix and match the best traits of both Orcs and Humans.
As for how, well once again this is setting dependent. In base D&D settings like Realms, Greyhawk etc, the Orc gods gave them the ability to reproduce with other races in order to try and out breed them. In other settings their sterile hybrids that suggest a common link between orcs and humanity, in a handful half-breed races are not even a thing because the different race are truly different species.
There is that but Tolkien never implied rape as the reason for the creation of half-orcs, remember there are many willing human servants of both Sauron & Saruman both of whom were trying to create strong and more effective breeds of Orcs during their campaigns against middle earth.
I think Forgotten realms is far more guilty of this trope in general as a result of R.A. Salvador's rather stupid comparison in his 4th edition works.
Take an orc, cut in half, chose the best part suited for your tastes or recipe :D
Orks are pretty humanoid. Think of something like a Mule or a Liger perhaps.
Nothing in fantasy settings to me seems to dictate that different "races" don't belong to the same species, in the way we now might call something "half-Italian" or some garbage.
Expect the biological differences are too wide to be merely minor adaptations to environment, it would suggest artificial engineering of the species if that were true. Mind you the fact that they are mostly humanoid suggest a common ancestor somewhere down the line, or the possibility that the races are in essence mutations upon a common species.
Yeah. Think of it this way: if the fantasy race of Dwarves trained in deadlift, it'd be like doing rack pulls compared to a human's deadlift. They'd probably pull much more weight.
Same with squats, and actually I guess bench press too because they have shorter arms. They could smoke us in powerlifting totals.
From what I can remember of middle earth lore, the reason for hammers and axe was due to fighting in tunnels and that they were closely related to the tools they use.
that is a great point about the crossbow
Think of romans, very small people, their enemies like Celts and Germans were very tall a good head higher if not more, the romans (dwarves in this case) wore heavy armour large shield and short stabbing sword, the axe would be good to use as a ballistic weapon, not unlike a pilum. So facing 'giants' as dwarves do (tall people) roman tactic's and deployment makes most sense. Just my views, also crossbows would be used by the part time soldiers called up to fight for their dwarf lord in times of need, heavy infantry with shield and weapon would be trained soldiers.
I don't know... What makes you supose that romans were smaller? They wouldn't be taller or at least the same height as celtic and germans of the time? Hadn't romans better alimentation while growing up with all the technics of farming and economical development?
The Celts were on average taller by around 6 inches, which to the romans in general made the Celts looked a lot taller on masse. diet has nothing to do with height when the ethnic group of people are naturally a certain height, its more to do with genetics. Given we are talking about Dwarves fighting style, in close combat where one army is on average shorter then it would have been very noticeable, the Celts used huge battle swords and fought in open order, the romans used a short sword as they fought in close order. roman and celtic shields were the same size, but the romans could use it to cover their whole body while the celts could not, in close combat been 6" taller gives a roman a 6" area to stab a celt. So the Dwarf with a kite shield like in the video could make better use of it than a average fantasy human.
I've read somewhere that celt *warriors* were 6' on average.
I read somewhere that shaving your head and standing out in the sun all day makes your skull more resistant to mace strikes. I think it was Herodotus (The guy everyone quotes on the Persian wars).
I take ancient reports with a grain of salt. It sounds better if you are facing a million men or giants who are 10 feet tall.
Actually, the increased vitamin D levels by bearing more flesh to sunlight _could_ help by developing stronger bones. I doubt enough to stop a mace of course. XD But it makes a certain basic logical sense.
well I disagree. the lord of the rings dwarves don't really need shields. Think about it, in the lore not only are they as strong as a man but less then half the height to begin with but their life style is working in mines, building into stone, and smithing. These guys I wager are stronger then the avg man just from the additional obsessive hard labor they do. This is great in armor because one of the issues that comes into play with all armor in all of war from men to even tanks is usually their comes a certain point where the armor just isn't able to be good enough to stop the weaponry being used on it and to add more would make moving impossible leading designers to either find light weight but effective versions or just put on almost no armor if they cant in order to opt for mobility. I don't think the dwarves suffer this so much because not only do they tend to create the most advanced weapons and armor leading one to believe they are on the fore front of lighter weight but just as effective designs but because they have half as much surface area to cover but as much if not more strength so in theory not only will the richest and best of warriors have the most well designed armor in middle earth but they also can have twice as much if not more without sacrificing prior mobility. Imagine a human helmet that is more then an 8th or quarter inch thick but is instead a half inch plus thick for dwarves. And they can just put this better double thickness armor all over themselves head to toe.
Just imagine the tallest and strongest of all the dwarves fitted with the most advanced armor heavier then a normal man could hope to pick up and incredibly thick built to his bodies specifications. I don't think a shield is necessary since shields are really their because the armor is good enough.
I mean jeez, dwarves armor can be so good while being lite that a feather heavy mithril chain mail armor saved a hobbit not just from being impaled by a troll with a pole arm but his ribs didn't break either.
Did not save him from being crushed under my boot. It was a accident.
actually, i think it would go the other way. the richer the dwarf is, the thinner his armor would be. because they would have money to make their armor lighter but stronger with materials better then iron/steel, like mithril. although mithril is, in general lore, heavier than iron/steel, is way stronger, so you can have it way more thinner than those, and have the same defense, now imagine a swift dwarf, now that is scary.
Good armor and hardiness doesn't stop a blade finding a weak point in your armor or a mace bashing your skull in through your helmet, a shield does. Shields are always viable options for the off hand, no matter what people say. Besides, I'd personally prefer to have attacks bouncing off my shield than off my armor. Also I'd imagine Dwarven society would be similar to Medieval Human Society, in that the richest people (IE the King, a Lord, etc) wouldn't be doing the work, so your point about richer dwarves having thicker (and thus heavier) armor is moot since most wouldn't have the physicality to wield them. However if we take what huroikai said into account, then richer dwarves could still have the most protective armor just because of the material.
Robert Dicke you say their is always a problem about armor not good enough, but in certain times normal European armor was basically invincible to anything sharp unless you found an opening in the armor, so the best weapons against it would be smashing weapons, which your "thicker armor" doesn't help with at all, so sorry sir, your point is invalid
I'll be playing a dwarf fighter in my first DnD game soon and I'm applying this to him.
Thanks shad.
A phalanx of dwarves w/spears on a cramp tunnel sounds scary.