No, because not all blunt weapons are the same.
Yes actually. Because maximizing blunt force damage is better against armour than using ineffective cuts that will damage your blade more than the opponent.
It's literally the logic behind the Muderstroke where you grasp a sword by the blade and hit with the hilt because that's far more effective against armour than the blade.
The shaft of a greataxe is just a stick and the flat side of the axe is just a paddle. Neither of these have any efficiency when it comes to damaging someone in armor. You are better of striking with the blade even if the armor will deflect some of the force because at least the force is more concentrated.
Both the shaft and flat side of a greataxe (Though, you'd most likely use the back of the axe head because double-bit axes are not logical to use in any sort of combat scenario) are far more effective against armour than the blade.
The axe head still provides weight to allow a bluntened side of an axe head to hit with heft and "Just a stick" (Like a stick - or Club, isn't one of the most successful weapons in all of human history and why quarterstaff sparring is rare due to its extremely high lethality even when going easy in sparring and wearing full protective gear) is literally still more effective than a blade for producing blunt force. Given a blade is easily deflected (Especially by plate) and has some of its force redirected into rolling or chipping the edge (Rendering your edge useless in addition to being less effective during that strike)
There's a reason why historical manuscripts show that in armour knight vs armoured knight fighting, the best course of action is to throw down your weapon and start grappling the opponent. Since your weapon is largely useless against the armour, your best bet is to grapple the opponent to the ground, pin them down and then pull out a dagger and plunge it into a gap between their armour (Or into the eye slits in their helmet).
But there are blade weapons, such as pole axes or halberds, designed with armor piercing in mind that are just as effective against armor.
Yes. These are designed with armour piercing in mind. By the addition of hammer heads and spikes that are used INSTEAD of the blade when facing armour.
There are no blades that are designed to beat armour, because blades simply do not function against metal armours. Since blades are made thin so they actually cut (Yes, even axe heads. A battle axe has a large and very thin head rather than your typical wood axe that is the opposite, with a small but thick head. Since battle axes are designed to slice into flesh while wood axes are designed either to chop into trees or to wedge into logs to split them), they are very weak to hitting anything hard, with plate armour (And all metallic helmets) being designed to cause blades to deflect off the curves (Which is why the trope of "Boob-plate" is so cringe, because the design of having breast protrusions would mean deflecting attacks towards the centre of the chest...)
