But they are also easy to break. 
Compared to a well made battle axe with those metal strips that serve both to strengthen the attachment of the head and to protect the shaft from impact, yes, I figure a pure wooden club is probably overall more vulnerable. And while the axe can dull, when that happens you still have what’s essentially a mace or warhammer. Both the weight distribution of the weapon and the hardness of steel help it give a bigger impact than a wooden head.
The advantage of a pure wooden weapon would be in its weight. It might be more comfortable to carry on a daily basis or as part of a larger loudout, and it probably has different flight characteristics, more range possibly? (Plus it’s cheaper to replace.) The people who used rungus also carried spears and swords, they knew about steel. And I have seen variations of the weapon incorporating something like a large nut (as in bolt and nut) into the head. So even pre-tourism they probably had reasons to generally prefer the wooden version.
A regular sword breaks easily to blunt force weapons.
And armour is of no use when your body directly feels the impact.
Really? I thought that the reason why sharp objects were invented since the Stone Age was because steel was more durable. It was harder to make, yes, but it sharpness was undenyable.
What do you meamn by “pre-tourism”?
So, what you are saying is that they used a wooden weapon as a second class weapon? Obviously, they used it for practice.
Keep in mind that people back then were like Hercules. It didn’t matter what they carried, to them it all weigthed a feather. What mattered to them is which object breaks faster. In this case, wood will be the first one to go. Spears and bows with arrows were easily breakable, that’s why people used to shoot or throw them. They knew that whatever the aim is, it will be penetrated and whatever it is it will die a slow death.
Are you serious or trying to troll?
2 Likes
Serious. People were able to carry mallet without an issue. Geez, people were trained from childhood how to carry and what. We are assuming that cavemen were like us, sitting on the couch day and night, but it’s not so.
Have you heard of a term “figuratevely speaking”?
Speaking of mallets - that’s how modern hammers got evolved. People realized that they don’t need a heavy mallet to crack people’s skulls. A hammer can do the trick plus it can hit a nail in someone’s head too. Besides, driving horses made humans more agile as they spent time seating more.
Sure, we might date hammers to the Stone Age, but they were never used as a weapon back then. At least, no hammers were discovered at battle scenes from that era.
1 Like
Ones tourism develops people sometimes keep doing something in a certain way because that’s what the tourists are expecting.
Practice for what? I was comparing a rungu with a throwing axe, but those are not used by the same people(s).
A throwing club is not great practice for a throwing spear.
Not sure if was copied, more like inherited. Slavs (Bulgarians especially) might have been the ruling elite over the Vlachs, at least until they created their own states, Walachia and Moldova. The Vlach rulers were called “Voievod” or “Domn”, one of clear Slavonic influence, the latter of Latin origin. The documents of the Chancellery and even the tomb stones of the rulers were written using Slavonic language. (same as Latin was used in the west.
Sword breaks, but not easily. Only poorly made sword breaks easily. Good sword flex, and iron/steel can bend. But yes, medieval steel was less homogenus than our steel now, so have weaker places in structrure, and they can reveal themselves during hard stress.
Something about wooden weapons. Many were very impressive!
2 Likes
Every civilization had a practice weapon. Wooden swords, etc.
Yeah, but there’s no common metal version of a rungu. There are some examples of people who tried or prefer a metal version, but the commonly used version is the fully wooden one. That’s the weapon they use, that they carry along with their spears and swords, that they use to defend their cattle against lions. So if that’s obviously a practice weapon, as you stated, what are they practicing for?
The nation of Italy today is considered to be in “West Europe” along with Germany if you evenly split Europe into “West” and “East” portions. Ignoring the geographical difference of “North” and “South” for a moment, Italy and Sicily is geographically more to the west of Europe than east, and especially culturally, that is the case. As the Normans themselves were Western Europeans by virtue of being occupants of France, and that they heavily influenced the culture and society of Sicily and Naples to be in the style of the other Western European kingdoms, it is safe to call it “West Europe” as well as “South Europe”.
Also consider that the Kingdom of Aragon, a WESTERN country, took over Sicily and Naples under Spanish influence, which further placed those lands under the orbit of western culture.
While it is true that the boyars were not unique to only the East Slavs, the Grand Duchy of Muscovy has an infamous track record of being heavily dominated by the political machinations of the boyars, so it makes sense, in a recognizable sense, to have the Slavs civ have Boyars as their UU.
Additionally, it is better to have the Poles keep the Obuch and the Lithuanians keep their Lethis, as they are already fun units to play.
1 Like
Don’t want to bring up any unnecessary drama, but as someone coming from years browsing Blizzard-related discussion communities, I wholly agree. The AoE2 community is miles ahead in terms of civility and health, even with all the whining, pointless discussions and ignorant comments; and I feel this also applies comparing to most other communities, though this is mostly an assumption based on hearsay.
I think the difference is how Europe as a whole is crammed with different civilizations while for other continents you can only really say that about particular regions. This might be a cultural bias because we mostly see the world from an european point of view, but this could be different if we saw Eurasia as a single continent from the get go.
Aka Arabs and Chinese were just good at assimilating other cultures, those are the two only examples. Theres no way of justifying that Europe is more varied than Africa nor Asia, particularly when so much is shared beetwen civilizations and theres only two major “cultural groups” while Asia has so many
Yes it totally is.
If we did that we would realize that the Dradivians are just as idiferent from the mongols as Europeans are. The whole concept of “Asian cultures” is silly
1 Like
There is if you take territory into account. You might not know that, but Europe is much smaller than Asia.
That’s… kinda the point? We had DLCs based on India and Southeast Asia, but never one based on Asia as a whole.
I can maybe considet that Europe has more “civ density” but even that one seems a bit debatable. South East Asia and Central Asia is more or less as dense in terms of possible factions and South Asia is way more dense. And theres still a decent variety everywhere else, so they could get like twice as much civs as Europe and still have good options (not to mention that the fact that Asia was richer and more populous than Europe makes them more powerful civs historically (like the Deccanis or Sinhalis were more powerful than the missing Euro civs despite being relatively minor people groups in India)
And wgen we look at Africa I think from what we know (and tbh we dont know that much) theres just as many peoples doing stuff in late medieval Africa as theres in Europe despite a large part of the african territory being devoid of any states. So, still the fact they have four civs if we include Saracens.
Either way the point I was making is that Europe having half the civs. Particularly when many of them being called separate civilizations (stuff like Burgundians, Sicilians and arguably Lithuanians who were independent for only 200 years) is quite sketchy.
Im not stupid, I have looked at maps.
Thepoint Im trying to make that Asia also has a great variety on how these civilizations are. In Europe theres a lot of homogenization even if theres a lot of diferent peoples. Similar values are held by most peoples from Ireland to Moscow.
1 Like
We could easily hit triple digit civ could and barely touch Europe ever again.
can you give some examples?