I've often wonderd about this and I've read so many articles and forum opinions, and they seem to change a lot.

So first off, what are the practical advantages and disadvantages to each?

Secondly, there are some inconsistencies I want to clear up, and find out where I'm going wrong:

- Lots of guides (including UESP) say that Blunt tend to do more damage than blade, but are heavier and slower. However, I find that one-handed axes I think ALWAYS have a lower damage rating than their blade equivalent. Or are axes meant to be equivalent to shortswords instead of longswords? Hmmm.....think that has only just occurred to me!!

- Okay so above revelation aside, I still think the next is valid. The UESP and other sources say that Blunt damage is worked out by taking the weight of the weapon into account, but the damage calculator I've seen on UESP furhter down the page doesnt show anything about weight of the weapon at all. So what's going on here?

I think they mean that the weight is kept in mind when the coder adds the damage rating to the weapon

Edit: As for Pros and Cons, Blades are cooler and blunts are heavier. Though there are some nice maces in the game. It's all about Damage vs. Weight IMO

For my mages I tend to prefear maces, they do a great deal of damage and has better reach than daggers.

I'm playing my level 11 shaman at the moment, he has light armour, illusion, destruction, alteration, resrotation,alchemy, and blunt... i prefer maces over blade i always will i dont know why i just do, i am wearing amber armour and using amber 2h and 1h mace (switch) mainly its all down to which one you prefer,

There's no really advantages or disadvantages that are noticeable. Do you picture your character using maces/axes or swords?

I think the main difference is reach

This is the skinny:

The highest damaging non-enchanted weapons in the game are Blades. For that reason a lot of people choose Blade. However if you understand enchants and such there really is no significant damage.

Blunt weapons are usually slower but deal more damage and have a higher chance of staggering an opponent. The also have a very slight bonus against undeads like Zombies and Skeletons, but you probably wouldnt notice it.

In short go for aesthetic appeal because there really isnt a significant diference otherwise.

Actually the highest damaging non-enchanted weapon in the game is the daedric warhammer (blunt). And I also thought that blunt weapons were slightly more effective against skellies.

I agree with your conclusion, though. In the end, it really doesn't matter which you choose. You can be deadly with each . . . or both. :nod:

Skellies are nothing damned easy, like they used to be. They are a real pain. I thought they were resistant to sharp and arrow weapons but NO:

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Skeleton#Bones_Undead

There is no significant difference between Blunts and Blades, damage-wise. But

Maces are like the longswords of blunts. They do the same damage as longswords and they have the same reach but are slower. They are also lighter than longswords. Axes are similar to shortblades but a little slower and a little more powerful. Axes have the same reach as shortwords but they are almost twice as heavy. Claymores are almost the same as battleaxes but they are a bit lighter and have a slightly longer reach. Warhammers have the same reach as claymores but they are slower and do more damage.

The idea is that the speed and power will balance out between the weapon types so that idealy they are all the same from a statistical standpoint. In reality there is some variability. For instance, if memory serves, daggers are the most powerful weapon simply because you can hit your enemy so many more times than with a larger weapon. Though personaly I find it hard to hit that fast.

I doubt that the weight of a weapons has anything to do with damage. It may however affect your chance to stagger your enemy with a hit.