I ax you this...

I was wondering, in combat how exactly could an axe be used to good effect? Ive never heard of any Oriental martial art that encompassed axe fighting, and among occidentals only two groups spring to mind that used the axe frequently; the vikings and the Egyptians. Even the viking example seems a bit shaky as most modern historians and archeologists say that a spear, sword and shield combination was by far the most common viking armourment. This suggests to me that most contemporary cultures and martial arts considered the axe a poor weapon.
Sitting here thinking about it it seems to make sense to me too. How would somebody armed with an axe, which even if it was 2-handed would only have a few feet reach, be able to confront someone with a 12-14 foot quarterstaff, bill, spear or pike? A 2 handed axe seems to offer no protection against other weapons, and although with a 1 handed axe you could also wield a shield at the same time, it would still seem to be an inferior weapon. Shorter and less maneuverable than a sword, yet also less use against plate armour, and just as tiring to use, as a mace or flail. Any thoughts?

Cheers.

Well, the Saxon housecarls used their 5-foot long, two-handed Danish axes to good effect against Norman, Breton, and French cavalry at Hastings...

"Ive never heard of any Oriental martial art that encompassed axe fighting"

http://www.page-five.de/TENSHU/sturm.htm

http://www.chinavoc.com/kungfu/weapons/rare_ham.asp

Hi Hulc,

If we take a broad view of history then we an see that for the most part thrusting weapons have been favoured over cutting weapons by almost every culture there has ever been. The term "Thrusting weapons" could even be stretched to include the vast majority of projectile weapons.

These types of weapons are lighter for their length, allow tighter formation fighting and longer reach, are cheap to produce, give wounds that are much harder to deal with than cuts often are and are simpler to use than a cutting weapon.
Cheers,
Stu.

The Persians used axes.

TFS, i knew the huscarls used big 2-handed axes as their preferred weapon of choice. My fault for using sloppy terminology, but i was lumpin them in with the vikings in my original post. Like i said though, most Norse and Anglo-Saxon warriors used a spear and shield combo with only a small minority favouring axes, again suggesting to me that most considered the spear a superior weapon. At Hastings as well, the huscarls used their axes for most of the battle from behind the shield wall. In open battle, how do you feel the huscarls would have been able to defend themselves against spear wielding Norman cavalry?

Winky, thanks for the links, although the 2nd one was in German so i was unable to read it.

Stu, those are all very good reasons, and i had considered many of them before, which is exactly why im asking how an axe, the most extreme example of a cutting weapon, could have been effectively used in combat.

IBI, was the axe the Persians preferred weapon?

IBI, was the axe the Persians preferred weapon?I believe it was usually a secondary weapon - like a hoplite's sword.

"If we take a broad view of history then we an see that for the most part thrusting weapons have been favoured over cutting weapons by almost every culture there has ever been"

I disagree with that. Both cut and thrust weapons have been used widely throughout history. Many weapons had a dual purpose.

"give wounds that are much harder to deal with than cuts often are and are simpler to use than a cutting weapon. Cheers, Stu"

I am surprised to hear that come from you, Stu, since you are a George Silver fan.

I know you have read it, but I will post it here for those who have not:

"I have known a gentleman hurt [thrusted] in rapier fight, in nine or ten places through the body, arms, and legs, and yet has continued in his fight, & afterward has slain the other, and come home and has been cured of all his wounds without maim, & is yet living. But the blow [cut] being strongly made, takes sometimes clean away the hand from the arm, has many times been seen(12). Again, a full blow upon the head or face with a short sharp sword, is most commonly death. A full blow upon the neck, shoulder, arm, or leg, endangers life, cuts off the veins, muscles, and sinews, perishes the bones: these wounds made by the blow, in respect of perfect healing, are the loss of limbs, or maims incurable forever...

And for plainer deciding this controversy between the blow and the thrust, consider this short note. The blow comes many ways, the thrust does not so. The blow comes a nearer way than the thrust most commonly, and is therefore sooner done. The blow requires the strength of a man to be warded [parried], but the thrust may be put by by the force of a child. A blow upon the hand, arm, or leg is maim incurable, but a thrust in the hand, arm, or leg is to be recovered. The blow has many parts to wound, and in every of them commands the life, but the thrust has but a few, as the body or face, and not in every part of them either."

- George Silver

Paradoxes of Defense, 1599

For those who don't know, George Silver was an English weapons master and writer in late 16th century England.

HULC,

"and among occidentals only two groups spring to mind that used the axe frequently; the vikings and the Egyptians"

The Franks were known for their axe use as well. They used a one handed axe that they were supposedly very good at throwing.

Shorter and less maneuverable than a sword, yet also less use against plate armour, and just as tiring to use, as a mace or flail. Any thoughts?

The Housecarls, Franks, Egyptians and Vikings didn't have to deal with plate armor, but medieval/renaissance Europeans did, and they used the axe as well. Many had a spike on the back end (much like a warhammer) for peircing plate or mail.

 

16th century battle axe:

 

 

Venetian battleaxe circa 1450:

 

 

Late 14th century axe:

 

 

Crusader axe, circa 1150 AD (about 3 feet long):

 

Swiss Pole axe:

 

War axe, circa 1575-1600:

 

Horseman's axe roughly15th-16th century:

All of these are photos of reproductions taken from (not directly linked from) the Museum Replica's website. I own the last one, it's got a good feel to it. Every one of these axes, (with the exception of the "crusader's axe") was designed to deal with plate. They were all built at a time when full plate was in effect.

With the excpetion of the "crusader's axe", you can see that most of them had a spike on the back for piercing plate. The Venetain axe has a steeped head, so that the point will drive in first and help cut the armor.

Hi YOL,

Are we talking duelling here or battlefield? I had assumed we were talking about the battlefield.

To this very day, cutting wounds are far more easily dealt with than thrusting wounds. I actually chatted with an Army nurse on this subject a couple of months back.

Trying to cut around a large shield in a tight
formation is not as easy as thrusting through with a spear. Silver is likely correct that a shearing blow does more damage, just not in the context of a close order infantry formation where long thrusting weapons were the order of the day.
Cheers,
Stu.

The venetian one looks a lot like a tomahawk, yes?

Silver is likely correct that a shearing blow does more damage, just not in the context of a close order infantry formation where long thrusting weapons were the order of the day.And yet, there's plenty of evidence of both incapacitating and deadly cutting blows in the battlefield context, from both archeological evidence (Wisby--where there were shields o' plenty), and period artwork (Urs Graf drawings, etc--that covered the very pike-oriented landsknecht era...)

Not to mention the cutting evidence found on Roman battlegrounds.

I believe the Japanese had an axe called a Masakari.
I don't really know much about how it was used, though I can guess (the axe-head goes into the other man...).

There aren't any surviving schools that teach it as a weapon, but it was out there.

"Winky, thanks for the links, although the 2nd one was in German so i was unable to read it."

Yeah, I know, I can't read it either -- it had the best pictures of Japanese battle axes that I was able to google up quick.

Stopping power is definately a factor in favour of cutting weapons. Also, most swords where tuned more towards the cut than the thrust until plate armour started to become more popular on the battlefield.

As far as the spear beeing more popular than the axe, well that depends. In Norway, axes dominate viking age gravefinds, followed by swords and spears. Bare in mind that most viking axes where single handed weapons and would be used with a shield. There are quite a few examples of great twohanded axes though, and they are fearsome weapons indeed. The power you can generate with one of those is frightening, and they are not slow and unwieldy like many people believe. Their defensive value is lesser than than a sword/shield or axe/shield combination though, so I imagine that the warriors using twohanded axes where ones with fairly good armour.

Axes where also used by knights by the way, especially the big poleaxes for armoured combat.