You must be the tomahawk poster from above. You have zero idea of how metallurgy nor hand to hand combat works and should go learn via trying to fight raccoons with whatever bullshit you have in your yard and then lose. Hopefully learn, and if you don’t learn get rabies and fucking die. Or you could read a book
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes >btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
anon is retarded. i can't find a weight figure for these babies but simple common sense tells you something this small and thin on a wooden haft is in no way comparable to a khopesh.
khopesh, like any bronze sword, needed a thick ridge to maintain structural integrity.
[...]
anon is retarded. i can't find a weight figure for these babies but simple common sense tells you something this small and thin on a wooden haft is in no way comparable to a khopesh.
khopesh, like any bronze sword, needed a thick ridge to maintain structural integrity.
The joint between the shaft and the epsilon axe-head was extremely weak. Attempts to solve this by changing the method of attachment don't seem to have solved the underlying problem. The solution that was eventually found was to cast the axe as one piece, but that took a *lot* of extremely expensive bronze, which could be reduced by skeletonizing it resulting in what we know call the khopesh.
That's a reason to use the khopesh instead, but it doesn't magically make the khopesh the lighter of the two. Calling it a skeletonized axe is fairly misleading because it points you to this dumbass argument where you honestly claim the khopesh used 2x less bronze.
>make the khopesh the lighter of the two
The lighter of which two? A skeletonized khopesh is absolutely lighter than a non-skeletonized bronze axe of similar size, unless you think that bronze has negative mass.
It seems you are conflating two separate design issues driving the shift from epsilon axe to khopesh. The first is the need to strengthen it by unitizing the blade and shaft. The second, independent of the first, is the need to reduce the amount of expensive metals in the weapon. As numerous anons itt have noticed, these two goals are in opposition to each other.
In
https://i.imgur.com/vzz4edf.gif
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes >btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
's pic, the change from (1) to (2) was driven by the need to reduce the amount of metal, the change from (2) to (3) was driven by the need to strengthen it by unitizing the weapon, and the shifts from (3) to (4) to (5) were driven by the need to reduce the amount of metal, which was enabled by better casting techniques and development of better alloys, e.g. moving from copper to arsenic bronze to tin bronze.
Do you know if billon (Cu:Ag 95/5 to 85/15) was ever used as a "alternative to bronze"? Brass was a iron age alloy but copper-silver is similar enough to bronze to used instead of it.
Kinda like a temporary way to quickly produce more hard alloy of copper without the limited tin or toxic arsenic (that probably wasn't as well understood as tin). Its physical properties are similar to bronze, more expensive but it doesn't needs the problematic tin.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Arsenic bronze was essentially free, as arsenic is naturally found in some copper deposits.
You're out thinking yourself. I guess you're used to formal arguments where it's easy to force a point by simply overcomplicating it.
The question is, does a khopesh use half as much bronze as an epsilon axe? The answer is no. In fact it uses much more. Unless "you think bronze has negative mass." Compared to the axe, the khopesh replaces the haft with bronze (you will find, in fact, that bronze is heavier than wood for similar strength). Compared to the axe, the khopesh needs a central rib of thickened bronze. Eliminating the head joint and some material improvements in no way compensate for these facts.
Do not reply again. No one needs to waste their time being as retarded as you are, not witnessing it.
>does a khopesh use half as much bronze as an epsilon axe
This is a strawman argument, and so can be ignored.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's literally the point in question.
https://i.imgur.com/vzz4edf.gif
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes >btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
You chose to defend it, that's on you.
The khopesh uses more bronze anyway so you aren't going to find a goalpost suited to your point.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It's literally the point in question
But it isn't. His claim is merely that a skeletonized axe uses less bronze than a non-skeletonized axe of similar design, which is not what your strawman is claiming.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I just showed you it's the point in contention. You can follow the thread, you do have a basic understanding of causality right? I even referenced it again later giving anon an out based on how ludicrous the claim is but he doubled down. >Does a khopesh use more bronze than an epsilon axe? yeah, pretty likely
I never said anything more than this yet you keep running your mouth. My post
https://i.imgur.com/wheij5H.jpg
[...]
anon is retarded. i can't find a weight figure for these babies but simple common sense tells you something this small and thin on a wooden haft is in no way comparable to a khopesh.
khopesh, like any bronze sword, needed a thick ridge to maintain structural integrity.
was specifically about this point.
Doubling back and saying "well I was actually comparing the khopesh to itself" is retarded, you can see the epsilon axe referenced in every post that started this argument.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You made a claim that neither I nor
https://i.imgur.com/vzz4edf.gif
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes >btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
have ever made, then proceeded to argue against that phantom claim, which makes your argument an example of a strawman argument. So fuck off and go be stupid someplace else.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
it to save enough material to make 2x more axes
What does this statement mean to you?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
It means that if you take an axe design and skeletonize it then you save metal that can be used to make more axes. The khopesh came centuries after the epsilon axe, and the only design element that it shares with the epsilon axe is that they are both axes.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>compare the khopesh to the epsilon axe directly >(390 lost arguments later) that would obviously be a retarded thing to do
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The only person who did this itt is
I just showed you it's the point in contention. You can follow the thread, you do have a basic understanding of causality right? I even referenced it again later giving anon an out based on how ludicrous the claim is but he doubled down. >Does a khopesh use more bronze than an epsilon axe? yeah, pretty likely
I never said anything more than this yet you keep running your mouth. My post [...] was specifically about this point.
Doubling back and saying "well I was actually comparing the khopesh to itself" is retarded, you can see the epsilon axe referenced in every post that started this argument.
, and yes, he did lose the argument.
You are genuinely braindead, that is my only possible conclusion.
We are in complete agreement that you were wrong.
>nooo you can totally add metal and make it lighter rilly guise
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There are four lights.
https://i.imgur.com/vzz4edf.gif
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes >btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>you can see the epsilon axe referenced in every post that started this argument
Nearly every one of those references was either one of my posts or a quote from one of my posts, explaining how the competing goals of strengthening the axe and reducing metal use drove the changes from epsilon axe to khopesh. There is not a single reference to epsilon axe before
https://i.imgur.com/vzz4edf.gif
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon) >skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes >btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are genuinely braindead, that is my only possible conclusion.
We are in complete agreement that you were wrong.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The khopesh uses more bronze
Uses more bronze than *what*? That seems to be the point of contention in this thread. Does a khopesh use more bronze than an epsilon axe? yeah, pretty likely. But by the time the khopesh came about the epsilon axe had been gone for many centuries, so comparing those two is utterly ridiculous. Does a khopesh use more bronze than an unskeletonized unitary axe? Nope, not even close, the khopesh wins by a mile.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Arsenic bronze was essentially free
And yet most bronze artifacts after the 1500 (iirc) were made with tin bronze. Tin was somewhat more expensive than copper and its price/supply was far more volatile during late bronze ages.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Tin bronze was superior not because of its price but because there was more of it, its properties could be controlled by the alloying ratios, it was less brittle, and it didn't kill the people who smelted it and wielded it.
You're out thinking yourself. I guess you're used to formal arguments where it's easy to force a point by simply overcomplicating it.
The question is, does a khopesh use half as much bronze as an epsilon axe? The answer is no. In fact it uses much more. Unless "you think bronze has negative mass." Compared to the axe, the khopesh replaces the haft with bronze (you will find, in fact, that bronze is heavier than wood for similar strength). Compared to the axe, the khopesh needs a central rib of thickened bronze. Eliminating the head joint and some material improvements in no way compensate for these facts.
Do not reply again. No one needs to waste their time being as retarded as you are, not witnessing it.
those weapon designs are thousands of years apart
a falchion is in no way comparable to an axe, even nutnfancy wouldn't try to split wood with that 1mm thick blade
An axe is for chopping, the blade of a sword is for cutting and slicing. Curved blades excel at slicing, which is why they have historically been prominent in cultures where hard armor was not common, and hardly seen in cultures where it was. Your pea brain might say both curved = same applications, but your pea brain would be wrong. Try using weapons or doing some light reading before you make such stupid assumptions.
>The khopesh isn't a sword.
the fuck it isn't, just because you swing it rather than poke doesn't mean it's an axe you twit see
Apply your brain.
An axe is for chopping, the blade of a sword is for cutting and slicing. Curved blades excel at slicing, which is why they have historically been prominent in cultures where hard armor was not common, and hardly seen in cultures where it was. Your pea brain might say both curved = same applications, but your pea brain would be wrong. Try using weapons or doing some light reading before you make such stupid assumptions.
>make a sword (richfag weapon)
This is one of the most annoying history myths to come from the last ten years. There's a reason every museum is packed to the fucking brim with swords, they were extremely common.
Would a Khopesh be a good design for a brush axe/machete? It seems well suited to it.
t. recently got into smithing/forging and want to make myself an edgy machete that's still a usable tool
No, it would be a terrible design. The shape weakens it and doesn't actually add any chopping power. Of course a machete hardly requires optimal blade design so it's not like as if it will be a failure of a machete, beyond making you tire out faster.
You must be the tomahawk poster from above. You have zero idea of how metallurgy nor hand to hand combat works and should go learn via trying to fight raccoons with whatever bullshit you have in your yard and then lose. Hopefully learn, and if you don’t learn get rabies and fucking die. Or you could read a book
puts more heft in the swing
fuck you
Straight can't even understand the superiority of Ciggertry blades.
>make a bronze axe (richfag weapon)
>shape it like a bronze axe (richfag weapon)
>skeletonize it to save enough material to make 2x more axes
>btfo all neighbors with your massive axe-swinging army
ftfy retard-kun
I don't know if skeletonizing the axe head saves enough bronze to offset also casting the haft out of it.
anon is retarded. i can't find a weight figure for these babies but simple common sense tells you something this small and thin on a wooden haft is in no way comparable to a khopesh.
khopesh, like any bronze sword, needed a thick ridge to maintain structural integrity.
The joint between the shaft and the epsilon axe-head was extremely weak. Attempts to solve this by changing the method of attachment don't seem to have solved the underlying problem. The solution that was eventually found was to cast the axe as one piece, but that took a *lot* of extremely expensive bronze, which could be reduced by skeletonizing it resulting in what we know call the khopesh.
That's a reason to use the khopesh instead, but it doesn't magically make the khopesh the lighter of the two. Calling it a skeletonized axe is fairly misleading because it points you to this dumbass argument where you honestly claim the khopesh used 2x less bronze.
>make the khopesh the lighter of the two
The lighter of which two? A skeletonized khopesh is absolutely lighter than a non-skeletonized bronze axe of similar size, unless you think that bronze has negative mass.
It seems you are conflating two separate design issues driving the shift from epsilon axe to khopesh. The first is the need to strengthen it by unitizing the blade and shaft. The second, independent of the first, is the need to reduce the amount of expensive metals in the weapon. As numerous anons itt have noticed, these two goals are in opposition to each other.
In
's pic, the change from (1) to (2) was driven by the need to reduce the amount of metal, the change from (2) to (3) was driven by the need to strengthen it by unitizing the weapon, and the shifts from (3) to (4) to (5) were driven by the need to reduce the amount of metal, which was enabled by better casting techniques and development of better alloys, e.g. moving from copper to arsenic bronze to tin bronze.
Do you know if billon (Cu:Ag 95/5 to 85/15) was ever used as a "alternative to bronze"? Brass was a iron age alloy but copper-silver is similar enough to bronze to used instead of it.
Kinda like a temporary way to quickly produce more hard alloy of copper without the limited tin or toxic arsenic (that probably wasn't as well understood as tin). Its physical properties are similar to bronze, more expensive but it doesn't needs the problematic tin.
Arsenic bronze was essentially free, as arsenic is naturally found in some copper deposits.
>does a khopesh use half as much bronze as an epsilon axe
This is a strawman argument, and so can be ignored.
It's literally the point in question.
You chose to defend it, that's on you.
The khopesh uses more bronze anyway so you aren't going to find a goalpost suited to your point.
>It's literally the point in question
But it isn't. His claim is merely that a skeletonized axe uses less bronze than a non-skeletonized axe of similar design, which is not what your strawman is claiming.
I just showed you it's the point in contention. You can follow the thread, you do have a basic understanding of causality right? I even referenced it again later giving anon an out based on how ludicrous the claim is but he doubled down.
>Does a khopesh use more bronze than an epsilon axe? yeah, pretty likely
I never said anything more than this yet you keep running your mouth. My post
was specifically about this point.
Doubling back and saying "well I was actually comparing the khopesh to itself" is retarded, you can see the epsilon axe referenced in every post that started this argument.
You made a claim that neither I nor
have ever made, then proceeded to argue against that phantom claim, which makes your argument an example of a strawman argument. So fuck off and go be stupid someplace else.
it to save enough material to make 2x more axes
What does this statement mean to you?
It means that if you take an axe design and skeletonize it then you save metal that can be used to make more axes. The khopesh came centuries after the epsilon axe, and the only design element that it shares with the epsilon axe is that they are both axes.
>compare the khopesh to the epsilon axe directly
>(390 lost arguments later) that would obviously be a retarded thing to do
The only person who did this itt is
, and yes, he did lose the argument.
>nooo you can totally add metal and make it lighter rilly guise
There are four lights.
>you can see the epsilon axe referenced in every post that started this argument
Nearly every one of those references was either one of my posts or a quote from one of my posts, explaining how the competing goals of strengthening the axe and reducing metal use drove the changes from epsilon axe to khopesh. There is not a single reference to epsilon axe before
.
You are genuinely braindead, that is my only possible conclusion.
We are in complete agreement that you were wrong.
>The khopesh uses more bronze
Uses more bronze than *what*? That seems to be the point of contention in this thread. Does a khopesh use more bronze than an epsilon axe? yeah, pretty likely. But by the time the khopesh came about the epsilon axe had been gone for many centuries, so comparing those two is utterly ridiculous. Does a khopesh use more bronze than an unskeletonized unitary axe? Nope, not even close, the khopesh wins by a mile.
>Arsenic bronze was essentially free
And yet most bronze artifacts after the 1500 (iirc) were made with tin bronze. Tin was somewhat more expensive than copper and its price/supply was far more volatile during late bronze ages.
Tin bronze was superior not because of its price but because there was more of it, its properties could be controlled by the alloying ratios, it was less brittle, and it didn't kill the people who smelted it and wielded it.
You're out thinking yourself. I guess you're used to formal arguments where it's easy to force a point by simply overcomplicating it.
The question is, does a khopesh use half as much bronze as an epsilon axe? The answer is no. In fact it uses much more. Unless "you think bronze has negative mass." Compared to the axe, the khopesh replaces the haft with bronze (you will find, in fact, that bronze is heavier than wood for similar strength). Compared to the axe, the khopesh needs a central rib of thickened bronze. Eliminating the head joint and some material improvements in no way compensate for these facts.
Do not reply again. No one needs to waste their time being as retarded as you are, not witnessing it.
3 and 4 look much more bronze consuming than 2
One of the dumbest and most arrogant posts I ever read here.
Less dumb than the OP. Nothing made out of bronze was a "poorfag" weapon.
This, most of the economies of antiquity were on the bronze standard
Weapons like that were quite literally made of money
those weapon designs are thousands of years apart
a falchion is in no way comparable to an axe, even nutnfancy wouldn't try to split wood with that 1mm thick blade
Yes, but not for that reason.
Just simply because it's a terrible shape for a sword.
Apply your brain.
An axe is for chopping, the blade of a sword is for cutting and slicing. Curved blades excel at slicing, which is why they have historically been prominent in cultures where hard armor was not common, and hardly seen in cultures where it was. Your pea brain might say both curved = same applications, but your pea brain would be wrong. Try using weapons or doing some light reading before you make such stupid assumptions.
Shape of khopesh is more similar to epsilon axe than to katana
Khopesh is one the most aesthetic swords in history
The khopesh isn't a sword.
The khopesh is either a sword or a very long knife, depending on the type of autism you ascribe to.
One thing is definitely isn't, is an axe.
>The khopesh isn't a sword.
the fuck it isn't, just because you swing it rather than poke doesn't mean it's an axe you twit see
Every fucking time this thing comes out I have to dig out this video
Poorfag logic.
>make a sword (richfag weapon)
This is one of the most annoying history myths to come from the last ten years. There's a reason every museum is packed to the fucking brim with swords, they were extremely common.
>op is retarded nagger who knows fuckall about metallurgy
Would a Khopesh be a good design for a brush axe/machete? It seems well suited to it.
t. recently got into smithing/forging and want to make myself an edgy machete that's still a usable tool
No, it would be a terrible design. The shape weakens it and doesn't actually add any chopping power. Of course a machete hardly requires optimal blade design so it's not like as if it will be a failure of a machete, beyond making you tire out faster.
>t. mad hittite still seething about Ramesses 3000 years later
Stay mad retard