Could you do a video about war axes in general as they were used in combat in whatever fashion they were. Were they used much at all, as a second weapon maybe, and what of vikings often portrayed wielding them as commonly as a sword. I would appreciate if you could oblige us who respect you insights into these areas of history. If not then no worries then. Thanks for all your awesome vids!
Dear Lindbeige, In your expert opinion, what would you recommend as the best medieval battlefield weapon for a well trained army or in single combat? A spear? A sword? An ax? A mace? ect.
@Nickkraw Based on the fact that it was the commonest battlefield weapon in near enough all cultures throughout the entirety of of the pre-gunpowder period all round the world, the spear. For single combat, it isn't so clear but the sword was a successful weapon.
@lindybeige I cannot thank you enough Lindybeige, I most appreciate your answering my question. But I thought that spears were so numerous due to their cheapness as they are mostly constructed of wood?
@Nickkraw The Normans were famed for their cavalry. Most Viking soldiers who used horses used them for getting to the fight, but then fought on foot. Some were perhaps a bit like dragoons.
I'm a Dark Ages - Middle Ages nerd, and I've never heard many of your facts. So I'm very glad to see these videos, because they're a SUPERB source of knowledge that I can't find anywhere else. Keep them up, they're EXCELLENT!
I think the same point can be made about warhammers, I think even more so if you look at the ones used in fantasy (I usually refer to them as "anvils on a stick")
@thenukacolaquantum museumreplicas(dot)com and kultofathena(dot)com have some fairly accurate ones. This one is pretty good for example, and carbon steel to boot!:
You should do a video about the myth of the giant fuck-off warhammers seen in movies/fantasy games (usually called mauls though they don't really resemble actual medieval mauls)
Now, while you do make a great point, and you are absolutely right, the axes that the vikings used were exceptionally well made and well blanced, which allowed for a greater weight than if the axe was poorly balanced and had a wider axe head.
What is also important to remember is that the Skeggöx, or bearded axe, used by the vikings were thin, rather small closer to the handle, but the head was very wide when looking at it from top to bottom which allowed for greater hacking power
Good point. It's very likely that the axes like bardiche (from Eastern Europe), the tabar zin (from Persia and India), and the fu (from China) are really meant for being used from or against horses.
Accept for those big cresent axes used by the Varangian regiment down in Constantinople, to be fare they were large of blade and light of wieght... Whoops didn't watch to the end of the vid sorryu, you did have a point on the dane axe
I disagree about the axe being slow, Im a reenacator. Our fights are competitive at times, the axe can be almost as fast as the sword in the right hands, the extra weight at end of the haft makes them very deadly and would be scary to face against. The big problem I see is they would get stuck in a shield or person after you hit them.
@Thane4 In a a two and a half minute video, I can't deal with everything, nor even all aspects of one thing. I struggle enough sometimes to make one point about one thing. I've never used a bardiche.
@lindybeige Speaking as someone who has used one, I wouldn't class them as a battleaxe. They are really wierd weapons. The way you hold them is one hand up underneath the blade near the top and the other further down the shaft, it's only about 4-5 feet in total length. It's very fast because of the balanced way it's held and it can hit incredibly hard, more so than a daneaxe albeit in a less focussed area. The point on the end is fantastic for getting under shields and ramming into their guts.
I seem to remember lochaber axes having large heads and long shafts, just a point but they may be more of a development from an axe towards a polearm/bill.
I agree that battle-axe heads were undoubtedly smaller, certainly when compared to modern depictions. Might not the handle be long, however? The bayou tapestry depictes the saxon defenders using rather large, single bitted axes. At least, the handle is long, like a polearm, really, but the heads appear to be smallish.
Long handled axes a possibility? I known the source I'm using is only one, and it's a decoration, after all.
@joebob2299 I saw a documentary about two handed battle axes once. As I recall it, the handle was long and wielded with two hands. It did have some advantages to. It was very easy and cheap to make. When in close combat you could use it more as a polearm, blocking swings with it and hopefully living a bit longer. Since the handle where so long, if you could work in a good swingin motion you could take down cavalry. (It helped if you where on a hill so they where running upwards) 's what I heard.
Question. Weren't some large battle axes developed to be used to tear through shields easier? Maybe not as the only weapon the fighter carried but as a situational weapon? I think to the ability to counter such a weapon though simply with polearms though proved them to be VERY situational.
Just another point (Cause I agree with all the ones in the vid!) is that I dont imagine those who used the big ol' dane axes would have been fighting one on one. We've got a couple in our society and the dane axe is always uses with a couple of cheeky spear-n-shieldmen who wait till the axe has hooked a shield ou the way and then stab through that lil' gap. Words to damn well *grumble*
I heard this about battle axes when I was young, from a guy making viking styled weapons and chain mails and a lot of other things. The axe that he had replicated was sort of like the one shown on the second picture there in the end but it was slightly longer.
The point of that axe was to hook someones knee and drag them down so you could slash them with your sword.
Now this was many years ago so i do not remember the details about the facts.
The Varangians used axes of well over 100cm (one quote is 170cm) & the men who wielded them were universally ENORMOUS. Originally Nordic, later almost exclusively Saxon English, these brutes were the personal guard of Turkish royalty. Much stronger than the typical warrior of the times & vastly more so than today's average wood chopper.. Axes & heavy mail in a shock force have a couple unique advantages: They can reach over shields & strike from the sides. If they are long enough.
@lindybeige Also enormous by what standard. 170cm would have been pretty huge by middle ages standards, 180cm would have been enormous. Also keep in mind all of that length would have been the relatively light, thin wooden handle, with a still thin, small head on the axe. Basically a short polearm.
Google Varangian Guard & Axes, YT doesn't let me post LINKS. The men are enormous. Their axes are almost as long as they are tall. The heads on the axes are LARGE. And the reason is that you are using them two handed to reach OVER an enemy spear hedge or beyond a charging horse lance with the intent of striking from the sides, not the top. If you have a small swing radii you need weight to damage with.
@Mixelplic The axeheads of those large axes were broad, but they were very, very thin, like the ones you see at the end of this video. A peasant might bring a thick-headed tool axe to a skirmish, but a warrior who can afford better will be a lot more practical. Weight is good only up to a point: the axe is already top-heavy, so you need very little actual weight to get the desired effect. And you do not go for maximum impact, you want to balance it with speed as well, or it's no good.
@Mixelplic As for reaching over an enemy spear hedge, well, the great axe is long, but not that long. If you can reach them with an axe (any axe), they can reach you with their spear. I don't think you want to engage a formation head-on if you have a two-handed axe and no shield. Even if you manage to subdue the guy in front of you so he can't stab at you, his friends on either side of him still can. And a charging horse: a two-handed axe may kill the horse, but it won't stop it.
@Mixelplic The thing about using Norsemen as bodyguards is that they were more trustworthy than hired help found locally. The reasons for hiring Norsemen was political rather than because of martial prowess. The Byzantines never seemed to have any trouble dealing with the Rus, who as you know were also of Scandinavian descent. Average Nordic height during the viking age ranged from 172,3 cm (Iceland) to 176 cm (Sweden). Taller than most other Europeans, but not by an awful lot.
@Mixelplic Those axes were Danish Axes, like the ones shown in the video at 2:13. Those handles were typically tall enough to reach from the ground to the owners chin, so yes they were very long.
@n2488 The bearded axe is a tool axe, such as are still made today in various variants. They may certainly have been used in fights, but they weren't war axes.
Hello everyone! A question for all you learned people about axes. I want to make a home made axe for training. I live in a heavily wooden area so materials (wood for handles and stones for axe heads) are plentiful. I have tried to make two axe heads out of stone and they kept breaking when i made them too thin. I am not sure if i am using the wrong type of stone or am i just making them too thin? Any advice on what kind of stone to use and how then to make them? Thanks in advance!
@lindybeige true.. but look again at what your saying.. stone age.. stone is generally werry brittle, not werry ideal for battle either.. a random club would probably do
I've had some experiance with using battle axes such as the Norman axe, Francisca etc. And there is no way on Earth would I use one in battle wieghing more than say a Gladius. The wieght and forward momentum just tires you out after constant use.
The other factor that battle axes were light is using shields, and more importantly the size of the shield. A roman scutum or a Greep hoplon do not work, and yes Ive tried. Intrestingly smaller buckler style and kite shields that were used work best.
Very funny and so true! I was a fan of double-bitted axes until I studied the Vikings and learned about the battle axes they used. Since then I became a fan of single-bitted axe. For example; I have a LOTR Gimli battle axe. The axehead alone weighs 20lbs! I'm a strong guy so I can handle it pretty well, but when I got a viking bearded battle axe. It was SO much lighter! I do see your point now and when I need to fight orcs I'll use the LOTR axe, but until then I'll use the bearded battle axes.
After having watched your video on sounds effects used when drawing swords, I feel I must bring into question your use of oral-based effects when swinging that axe.
They were used for hooking quite a bit. You would hook someone's shield away, sidestep, blade to the neck. Or, anything really, once you eliminated their shield, you could do pretty much whatever.
Ah yes. I chop wood regularly, and I have experience with big axes as a result. Let me tell you, at first it might seem all fine and dandy to swing a big axe around. But you have to line up a strike every time, and it doesn't take too long for the heavy axe to start seeming much heavier. I certainly wouldn't want to go up against someone with one, because if I swing and miss, I'll be dead. And he can see the swing a mile away and react anyhow. Not a good deal if he's not slowed down himself.
@jaskamakkara Not really. One could argue that the development of the late halberd was a way of getting through better armour, but that was making the haft linger, not making the head heavier.
Piercing armor is hard even with a heavy chopping blade, anyway. Actual plate armor, despite being actually quite thin (and thus suprisingly light), is really quite resistant. The very form of the plate is designed to direct the blow away from a direct, squarely placed hit. You could do it, certainly, but it took a lot of effort. Many axes did have a beak (to pierce) or a small hammerlike striking surface (to smash like a hammer) on the other side to better deal with armor though
I WILL say this, I can see myself taking big axes and adopting a style suitable for them, it would be a very broad swinging style based on large big round swings with big impacts and quick pullbacks on impact with distance between me and target I think strength + tendency to be slower than others would make these better for you, although other weapons might still be better and you've just taken an overall hit in efficacy of weapon usage... unfortunately thanks to genetics and training :p
with the largers bits I think you're relying on momentum based wrecking ball movement, I think a mace would do on that but if you want that extra directional punch, well, maybe that's a bit of why, but then the smaller axeheads will do that better still, but if you just want to go bigger.. well just use a pointed mallet I guess....
a wood axe can be used as an axe, or the back end of the blade as a blunt hammer like instrument! ;D I was using a hatchet's to make an unbinded wooden fence once!
A guy tried arguing to me that a 3.18 kg (7 lbs) Dane Axe can be utilized one-handed with a shield. Clearly not. But the Dane Axe (aka Great Axe) was utilized two-handed, not with a shield, using length instead of a shield to parry. But you are right, even those axeheads on a longer two-handed weapon were still not that large or grossly heavy.
Very fascinating reviews about ancient weaponry, and interesting how you don't seem to favor any particular culture but give the simple facts. I'd thoroughly enjoy if you could give the same treatment to some mesoamerican weapons like the macuahuitl or the gunstock war club. Can't find many documentaries about those and thos that do exist strike me as highly biased (either in favor or against)
So, if you have a bardiche, does the fact that a good part of the blade is actually on the pole help balance out the head? Because bardiches have some truly massive blades on them. I guess they're not actually axes, however (?)
I read a book in my library while ago. it said the viking axe came about when they were farmers and they got raided, they use their wood axe. Some vikings used that still cause they were dirt poor but others made it really light. Designed for a quick blow to a skull. The Danish axes i read were more lethal pulling out of the enemy than the chop itself.
Thin Blade did greater damage than a big heavy axe head anyway. There where not for fighting fires or cutting wood, They where for killing people, and they needed to be light enough to maneuver around a defense, what can you do with A great big axe besides be a sitting target?
These are the same people that think Samurai Wielded 30 pound clubs.
On a battleaxe you need only a thin blade since you have no need to push apart pieces of wood (or in that case flesh) you just need to kill people, making them bleed is a good way, therefore you need an edge.
To fell a tree you need to make a vast notch in the tree so the structure is weakened there a broadblade is better. Compared to a splittingmaul even the Axes for wood are fairly slim, but enemys on the battlefield rarely split like dry wood.
@lindybeige true, but those heads are pretty wide and the housecarls carried them on fairly long long handles, 4 plus feet. This reminds me - my friend recently bought a really nice quality throwing axe, and though the purpose was obviously not for fighting in battles, the blades are quite thin over all and super sharp. You really get an idea of how deadly a proper fighting axe could be.
I have never come across any axe heads that were "really heavy", except possibly executioner's axes. The heaviest war axes would be pollaxes and halberds, none of which were used by vikings (and even here you have comparatively small axe heads). And on the battlefield, people using such weapons would need some protection from friends with smaller equipment. No offense to them.
@Kingofsomething87 They have been depicted like that in some documentaries (Like conquest, urgh!) but all the findings that I've seen supports Lindybeige's claim.
You would not want to fight with such a heavy weapon anyway. You'd be exhausted in an instant!
But what about the increased momentum a heavier axe-head would bring with? Ofc with a sacrifice to your stamina but with the advantage to break the opponents defense with brute force
Yes, you could make one very heavy bash with a heavier axe, although the enemy would see it coming a long way off. If the axe is too light it becomes ineffective. The equation seems to balance at optimum efficiency with an axe head smaller than fantasists imagine.
Weren't those hammer and mace weapons used in battles a lot smaller (the head part at least) than you see in movies and fantasy, like the axes are?
ps: I don't think Gimli would be quite so bad arse if he used a realistic axe in battle.
pps: On topic of unrealistic weapons, why is it bows used by good guys in fiction seem to be able to kill people instantly with one arrow regardless of where it hits. A hit to a big toe is leathal!
Because if the effect of the wounds caused by the heroes' arrows were realistic, those heroes might seem cruel. Better that the bad guy's minions die peacefully and quickly.
Shields are wonderful, but two weapons are very effective too. Fighting wise, they're about equal, meaning a guy with a sword and shield is about equal to a guy with two swords.
Sword and axe is a very effective combination - hook the shield or sword with the axe and kill with the sword.
Two things though - shields can stop arrows, and shields are much cheaper than swords. Who's outfitting the army, and what are they paying?
im an avid fantasy fan, and i love drizzt as much as the next guy, but i dont think it is entirely impossible, in the context we are talking about, for 2 weapons to be used.
musashi's style was a 2 sword style, and the reason he is so legendary is that we can verify the claims we make of him.
now im not saying that any idiot can pick up 2 weapons and do anything more than tie himself up in them, BUT with enough training it is not ineffective. its just harder.
I feel that if two swords were better than sword and shield, then the world would not have been one in which almost everybody from revolting peasant to professional soldier chose sword and shield.
I wouldn't say that dual wielding swords is better per say but in a one on one fight I'd want two swords over a sword and shield.
I would guess that shields prevailed as the more used because they are more useful in large conflicts. Shield walls, phalanxes, and passive defense against arrows make them wonderful to outfit your army with.
thats because a shield protects you from arrows, two swords doesnt.
and the point is that its NOT easier to use, but once you get THAT good you do get better, thee main advantage of two swords s really against people like, as you note, longaxemen, probably lighter warriors like for example scouts who would find a shield two unwieldy and didnt really use shields
d surmise them being better at counering two handed weapons like the danish axe or the 'clae moh' or the zwaihander.
How does using two swords make you better off against big weapons than single-hander and shield? And indeed, as this has never been done (or even suggested) historically, isn't this just a bit of arm-chair speculation?
well yes it is speculation bsed on, what the merits and weaknesses of the weapons are, for example, against a danish axe, the shield provides a greater surface to hook using the axe, the argement has to do with the ease of which you can manipulate what your holding to not stop thoe big werapons, wasted energy, but deflect them, though i realise that a shield like a vikings can also do this by rotating it left or right. but it still stands that to kill 2 hander users, its best to shoot them.
the reasoning for it being possibly easier is that a sword OR even more interestingly a pair of smaller axes (where you can use the angled junction between the head and haft to help trap weapons a sword you have a much greater potential degree of control over it, you can more easily angle it to eflect strikes like a fencer, but with two swords you can inter cept a larger weapon, also a person wth two swords also is in theory able to travel easier, a shield is much more conspicuous when incognito
As for the point on Musashi, the most common interpretation of his style (Nito-ryu) is Katana/wakazashi, long sword/short sword method. Nothing I have ever read indicated that he fought with two Katana. This style is still practiced though it is understood to be challenging. Some research points to possible inspiration from Portuguese swordsman who fought with rapier/main gauche. Never a dominant or favored system of swordsmanship among the Japanese.
I have to correct you on Musashi. His *training* style does indeed involve two swords, but his *fighting* style only used one. He said himself in his Articles on Swordsmanship that his training with two swords "implies nothing special", beyond becoming more proficient in using a single sword one-handed (and training the off-hand, too). There is no record of Musashi ever having actually fought with two swords.
Finally somebody is telling the truth behind battle axes. I can't tell you how many arguement I have been in trying to explain the size of battle axe heads and just have people blankly stare at me.
I'm a big fan of axes, I do alot of Bushcraft with my belt hatchet and Forest Axe. Wouldn't confuse them for a battle axe though, fighting axes are a different tool all together (my belt axe would do in a pinch, just like my belt knife would... in a pinch). Even my Small Forest Axe, small for a wood working axe, has a thicker head than the war axe's you see in museum's. And It's a Gransfor, they have traditional European Axe heads, thinner blade than the American style.
Yeah, I was shocked to find out that the longest Dane Axe or Skuggox is roughly four feet. From what I've seen, the fighting techniques with them involve quickly sliding the striking hand down the haft to get a kind of flicking motion, as opposed to the great swings you see on films and such. I remember hearing at some point that Anglo Saxon Huskarls trained in a left handed style to make it easier to get past their generally right handed opponent's shield.
Yep, indeed. In real life, those gigantic fantasy axes would hardly be much better than fighting bare handed (that way you'd at least be faster...).
The only disadvantage of a small axe head I could imagine is that the cutting edge is smaller and that it, depending on the shape, would probably have a tendency to get stuck in the enemy's body.
They don't take long to shoot. They take far longer to edit. When I get the opportunity, I set the camera up and shoot between four and ten at a time. It's just a bloke talking.
Informative.
Aznl89 3 weeks ago
my axe is single bitted with a spur 6 inches from blade to sput end with a 36 inch handle. would you consider this accurate?
wolfyk95 1 month ago
Could you do a video about war axes in general as they were used in combat in whatever fashion they were. Were they used much at all, as a second weapon maybe, and what of vikings often portrayed wielding them as commonly as a sword. I would appreciate if you could oblige us who respect you insights into these areas of history. If not then no worries then. Thanks for all your awesome vids!
smoked1990 1 month ago
You look so excited about showing how to kill people with an axe lol
Hheretic14 2 months ago
Dear Lindbeige, In your expert opinion, what would you recommend as the best medieval battlefield weapon for a well trained army or in single combat? A spear? A sword? An ax? A mace? ect.
Nickkraw 2 months ago
@Nickkraw Based on the fact that it was the commonest battlefield weapon in near enough all cultures throughout the entirety of of the pre-gunpowder period all round the world, the spear. For single combat, it isn't so clear but the sword was a successful weapon.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige I cannot thank you enough Lindybeige, I most appreciate your answering my question. But I thought that spears were so numerous due to their cheapness as they are mostly constructed of wood?
Nickkraw 2 months ago
@Nickkraw Not really. The amount of metal in an axe head is not much different. A club needn't be metal at all.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige I see, well thank you Lindybeige. Your wisdom knows no bounds.
Nickkraw 2 months ago
@lindybeige Dear lindybeige, would vikings or Norsemen ever used cavalry?
Nickkraw 1 month ago
@Nickkraw The Normans were famed for their cavalry. Most Viking soldiers who used horses used them for getting to the fight, but then fought on foot. Some were perhaps a bit like dragoons.
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige I thank you most dearly Lindybeige, for sharing your brilliant sagacity.
Nickkraw 1 month ago
@lindybeige I hear a lot of crap about halberds, or was that just for beating cavalry?
shoopoop21 1 month ago
@shoopoop21 No, halberds were used vs infantry too.
lindybeige 1 month ago
I'm a Dark Ages - Middle Ages nerd, and I've never heard many of your facts. So I'm very glad to see these videos, because they're a SUPERB source of knowledge that I can't find anywhere else. Keep them up, they're EXCELLENT!
aabceacba 2 months ago
What are the thicker axe heads in the picture with the thin two handed axe heads?
olelumpy 2 months ago
@olelumpy Carpentry axes.
lindybeige 2 months ago
Nice videos man! Keep posting!
Plevrotous26 2 months ago
i love your sound effects
klappspatenkamikaze 3 months ago
HA! Liked the end joke quite a bit
TheWhoaDude 3 months ago
This guy is funny!
SilverterrorII 3 months ago
Watched a few of your videos. Thought: "I like this guy."
Username93611 3 months ago
I think the same point can be made about warhammers, I think even more so if you look at the ones used in fantasy (I usually refer to them as "anvils on a stick")
DanielKay06 3 months ago
have you thought about doing halberds? you know, the part spear part battleaxe weapon with a long reach?
kankunation13 4 months ago
What about bearded axe's? They're the don.
dathwampeer 4 months ago
@dathwampeer Some of the axes pictured in this video are bearded axes. Thin.
lindybeige 4 months ago
@lindybeige Oh yea, they've very thin, but you can get quite large bearded axes. They are rare to come across though.
dathwampeer 4 months ago
@thenukacolaquantum museumreplicas(dot)com and kultofathena(dot)com have some fairly accurate ones. This one is pretty good for example, and carbon steel to boot!:
kultofathena(dot)com/product(dot)asp?item=600796&name=Viking+Dragon+Axe
Andernerd 4 months ago
You should do a video about the myth of the giant fuck-off warhammers seen in movies/fantasy games (usually called mauls though they don't really resemble actual medieval mauls)
DazzaBo 4 months ago
What battle axes could I buy that are actually historically accurate then?
Or where?
TheNukaColaQuantum 5 months ago
@TheNukaColaQuantum
Arms & Armor of Minneapolis makes wonderful historically-accurate axes. Google them, since I can't post a link in a comment.
LunarEclipsism1 5 months ago
Now, while you do make a great point, and you are absolutely right, the axes that the vikings used were exceptionally well made and well blanced, which allowed for a greater weight than if the axe was poorly balanced and had a wider axe head.
What is also important to remember is that the Skeggöx, or bearded axe, used by the vikings were thin, rather small closer to the handle, but the head was very wide when looking at it from top to bottom which allowed for greater hacking power
MatteV2 5 months ago
But my penis likes like looking at really big weapons and half naked uncommonly attractive women!
Pariah1974 6 months ago 4
@Pariah1974 Your penis has eyes? Rare.
lindybeige 6 months ago 22
@lindybeige No, it just occasionally assumes control over my higher functions. Doesn't yours?
Pariah1974 6 months ago
lol the end waz my favorite :p
kj8022 6 months ago
Good point. It's very likely that the axes like bardiche (from Eastern Europe), the tabar zin (from Persia and India), and the fu (from China) are really meant for being used from or against horses.
Tareltonlives 6 months ago
i love your sound effects :D
klappspatenkamikaze 6 months ago
a gallowglass axe head is nearly a foot long however it is quite thin. so thumbs up!
mouthforwar17 6 months ago
Ever killed anyone with an axe?
studiosguignol 6 months ago
@studiosguignol Not sure. Can't remember.
lindybeige 6 months ago 25
....
...
Oh NOW I get the joke at the end.
Zodgod5 7 months ago
@Zodgod5 I didn't D:
DiabolusIgnis 7 months ago
Accept for those big cresent axes used by the Varangian regiment down in Constantinople, to be fare they were large of blade and light of wieght... Whoops didn't watch to the end of the vid sorryu, you did have a point on the dane axe
BryanTaerg 7 months ago
I disagree about the axe being slow, Im a reenacator. Our fights are competitive at times, the axe can be almost as fast as the sword in the right hands, the extra weight at end of the haft makes them very deadly and would be scary to face against. The big problem I see is they would get stuck in a shield or person after you hit them.
falco1066 7 months ago
What about the Bardiche?
Thane4 7 months ago
@Thane4 In a a two and a half minute video, I can't deal with everything, nor even all aspects of one thing. I struggle enough sometimes to make one point about one thing. I've never used a bardiche.
lindybeige 7 months ago
@lindybeige Speaking as someone who has used one, I wouldn't class them as a battleaxe. They are really wierd weapons. The way you hold them is one hand up underneath the blade near the top and the other further down the shaft, it's only about 4-5 feet in total length. It's very fast because of the balanced way it's held and it can hit incredibly hard, more so than a daneaxe albeit in a less focussed area. The point on the end is fantastic for getting under shields and ramming into their guts.
iainmud 7 months ago
@iainmud I have a hypothesis that the Dane axe was meant as a way to counter shield walls by reaching over the shield and coming down on the head.
Tareltonlives 6 months ago
@Thane4 I wouldn't class a bardiche as an axe. They were polearms, wielded with both hands like a short halberd.
Timrath 6 months ago
Is not the first museum axe shown double sided? One blade and one hammer point?
checkboard 7 months ago
@checkboard I don't think the back end was intended as a striking surface in battle.
lindybeige 7 months ago
Very nice mime work there lol
idiot1jerk2face3 7 months ago
lindybeige; the most badass dude in a sweater.
DazzaBo 8 months ago 2
I seem to remember lochaber axes having large heads and long shafts, just a point but they may be more of a development from an axe towards a polearm/bill.
AlexPrestage 8 months ago
I agree that battle-axe heads were undoubtedly smaller, certainly when compared to modern depictions. Might not the handle be long, however? The bayou tapestry depictes the saxon defenders using rather large, single bitted axes. At least, the handle is long, like a polearm, really, but the heads appear to be smallish.
Long handled axes a possibility? I known the source I'm using is only one, and it's a decoration, after all.
joebob2299 9 months ago
@joebob2299 Yes, the handle could be long - noticeably longer than a felling axe.
lindybeige 9 months ago
@joebob2299 I saw a documentary about two handed battle axes once. As I recall it, the handle was long and wielded with two hands. It did have some advantages to. It was very easy and cheap to make. When in close combat you could use it more as a polearm, blocking swings with it and hopefully living a bit longer. Since the handle where so long, if you could work in a good swingin motion you could take down cavalry. (It helped if you where on a hill so they where running upwards) 's what I heard.
Dokph 7 months ago
Question. Weren't some large battle axes developed to be used to tear through shields easier? Maybe not as the only weapon the fighter carried but as a situational weapon? I think to the ability to counter such a weapon though simply with polearms though proved them to be VERY situational.
hardware72 9 months ago
Just another point (Cause I agree with all the ones in the vid!) is that I dont imagine those who used the big ol' dane axes would have been fighting one on one. We've got a couple in our society and the dane axe is always uses with a couple of cheeky spear-n-shieldmen who wait till the axe has hooked a shield ou the way and then stab through that lil' gap. Words to damn well *grumble*
Johtas1 9 months ago
@aFartingButt lol
Antiks72 9 months ago
I heard this about battle axes when I was young, from a guy making viking styled weapons and chain mails and a lot of other things. The axe that he had replicated was sort of like the one shown on the second picture there in the end but it was slightly longer.
The point of that axe was to hook someones knee and drag them down so you could slash them with your sword.
Now this was many years ago so i do not remember the details about the facts.
Saraspoon 9 months ago
The Varangians used axes of well over 100cm (one quote is 170cm) & the men who wielded them were universally ENORMOUS. Originally Nordic, later almost exclusively Saxon English, these brutes were the personal guard of Turkish royalty. Much stronger than the typical warrior of the times & vastly more so than today's average wood chopper.. Axes & heavy mail in a shock force have a couple unique advantages: They can reach over shields & strike from the sides. If they are long enough.
Mixelplic 9 months ago
@Mixelplic 'Universally enormous'? Evidence? Seems unlikely.
lindybeige 9 months ago
@lindybeige Also enormous by what standard. 170cm would have been pretty huge by middle ages standards, 180cm would have been enormous. Also keep in mind all of that length would have been the relatively light, thin wooden handle, with a still thin, small head on the axe. Basically a short polearm.
Maximicus 9 months ago
@lindybeige
Google Varangian Guard & Axes, YT doesn't let me post LINKS. The men are enormous. Their axes are almost as long as they are tall. The heads on the axes are LARGE. And the reason is that you are using them two handed to reach OVER an enemy spear hedge or beyond a charging horse lance with the intent of striking from the sides, not the top. If you have a small swing radii you need weight to damage with.
Mixelplic 9 months ago
@Mixelplic The axeheads of those large axes were broad, but they were very, very thin, like the ones you see at the end of this video. A peasant might bring a thick-headed tool axe to a skirmish, but a warrior who can afford better will be a lot more practical. Weight is good only up to a point: the axe is already top-heavy, so you need very little actual weight to get the desired effect. And you do not go for maximum impact, you want to balance it with speed as well, or it's no good.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
@Mixelplic As for reaching over an enemy spear hedge, well, the great axe is long, but not that long. If you can reach them with an axe (any axe), they can reach you with their spear. I don't think you want to engage a formation head-on if you have a two-handed axe and no shield. Even if you manage to subdue the guy in front of you so he can't stab at you, his friends on either side of him still can. And a charging horse: a two-handed axe may kill the horse, but it won't stop it.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
@Mixelplic The thing about using Norsemen as bodyguards is that they were more trustworthy than hired help found locally. The reasons for hiring Norsemen was political rather than because of martial prowess. The Byzantines never seemed to have any trouble dealing with the Rus, who as you know were also of Scandinavian descent. Average Nordic height during the viking age ranged from 172,3 cm (Iceland) to 176 cm (Sweden). Taller than most other Europeans, but not by an awful lot.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
@Mixelplic Those axes were Danish Axes, like the ones shown in the video at 2:13. Those handles were typically tall enough to reach from the ground to the owners chin, so yes they were very long.
TheScandinavianOne 7 months ago
the bearded axe was big but it didn't stay very popular very long
n2488 9 months ago
@n2488 The bearded axe is a tool axe, such as are still made today in various variants. They may certainly have been used in fights, but they weren't war axes.
Gilmaris 9 months ago
I dont imagine someone wearing that sweater going
PWSH POW PIKLING PKOW!!! with a battle axe O.o
skullythebloger 10 months ago
I think you rolled a natural 20
the26thhour 11 months ago
I think you can get an answer for everyting on the Cold Steel video: Fighting Tomahwk. From choping, cuting, spearing etc they cover a wide topic.
Attilahollo9 11 months ago
Hello everyone! A question for all you learned people about axes. I want to make a home made axe for training. I live in a heavily wooden area so materials (wood for handles and stones for axe heads) are plentiful. I have tried to make two axe heads out of stone and they kept breaking when i made them too thin. I am not sure if i am using the wrong type of stone or am i just making them too thin? Any advice on what kind of stone to use and how then to make them? Thanks in advance!
TheRedWolf080 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 Google for stone age axes and look at their proportions. They are a lot thicker than metal axe heads.
lindybeige 11 months ago 4
@lindybeige true.. but look again at what your saying.. stone age.. stone is generally werry brittle, not werry ideal for battle either.. a random club would probably do
EgholmViking 6 months ago
@EgholmViking I don't know of any evidence that stone age axes were used for battle. I think they were mainly for display and for felling trees.
lindybeige 6 months ago
I've had some experiance with using battle axes such as the Norman axe, Francisca etc. And there is no way on Earth would I use one in battle wieghing more than say a Gladius. The wieght and forward momentum just tires you out after constant use.
The other factor that battle axes were light is using shields, and more importantly the size of the shield. A roman scutum or a Greep hoplon do not work, and yes Ive tried. Intrestingly smaller buckler style and kite shields that were used work best.
amitten 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but my favorite part of this video was the note at the end.
ChishioAme 1 year ago
I think you would also want a long/ish handle and to hold it up between 25% - 33% up from the pommel.
The clearest example of this I can find is the Persian Sagaris but one also sees it in some Tomahawks.
This would improve the balance of the weapon and allow a feint of "snapping" the handle against the forearm to allow a secondary strike.
indirectapproach 1 year ago
Very funny and so true! I was a fan of double-bitted axes until I studied the Vikings and learned about the battle axes they used. Since then I became a fan of single-bitted axe. For example; I have a LOTR Gimli battle axe. The axehead alone weighs 20lbs! I'm a strong guy so I can handle it pretty well, but when I got a viking bearded battle axe. It was SO much lighter! I do see your point now and when I need to fight orcs I'll use the LOTR axe, but until then I'll use the bearded battle axes.
mariopcastillo 1 year ago
After having watched your video on sounds effects used when drawing swords, I feel I must bring into question your use of oral-based effects when swinging that axe.
;)
wesmatron 1 year ago
Is it possible that the "Danish axes" shown in your pictures were used for stabbing? I noticed that the head is very pointed.
Oiaku 1 year ago
@Oiaku You could stab a bit. It would be unpleasant at the receiving end, but seldom fatal. It might in a pinch set a foe up for a later chop.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@Oiaku
They were used for hooking quite a bit. You would hook someone's shield away, sidestep, blade to the neck. Or, anything really, once you eliminated their shield, you could do pretty much whatever.
SkiDesignS 1 year ago
Ah yes. I chop wood regularly, and I have experience with big axes as a result. Let me tell you, at first it might seem all fine and dandy to swing a big axe around. But you have to line up a strike every time, and it doesn't take too long for the heavy axe to start seeming much heavier. I certainly wouldn't want to go up against someone with one, because if I swing and miss, I'll be dead. And he can see the swing a mile away and react anyhow. Not a good deal if he's not slowed down himself.
Nakedspaceman1 1 year ago
But did'nt they become gradually larger as such light axes could'nt pierce very thick armor?
jaskamakkara 1 year ago
@jaskamakkara Not really. One could argue that the development of the late halberd was a way of getting through better armour, but that was making the haft linger, not making the head heavier.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige Okay.
jaskamakkara 1 year ago
@jaskamakkara
Piercing armor is hard even with a heavy chopping blade, anyway. Actual plate armor, despite being actually quite thin (and thus suprisingly light), is really quite resistant. The very form of the plate is designed to direct the blow away from a direct, squarely placed hit. You could do it, certainly, but it took a lot of effort. Many axes did have a beak (to pierce) or a small hammerlike striking surface (to smash like a hammer) on the other side to better deal with armor though
Nakedspaceman1 1 year ago
Hey, hey hey you're forgetting that trolls like in lord of the rings are super strong ! lol jk your videos are very informative thank you.
frost2021 1 year ago
I WILL say this, I can see myself taking big axes and adopting a style suitable for them, it would be a very broad swinging style based on large big round swings with big impacts and quick pullbacks on impact with distance between me and target I think strength + tendency to be slower than others would make these better for you, although other weapons might still be better and you've just taken an overall hit in efficacy of weapon usage... unfortunately thanks to genetics and training :p
noobler9 1 year ago
with the largers bits I think you're relying on momentum based wrecking ball movement, I think a mace would do on that but if you want that extra directional punch, well, maybe that's a bit of why, but then the smaller axeheads will do that better still, but if you just want to go bigger.. well just use a pointed mallet I guess....
a wood axe can be used as an axe, or the back end of the blade as a blunt hammer like instrument! ;D I was using a hatchet's to make an unbinded wooden fence once!
noobler9 1 year ago
A guy tried arguing to me that a 3.18 kg (7 lbs) Dane Axe can be utilized one-handed with a shield. Clearly not. But the Dane Axe (aka Great Axe) was utilized two-handed, not with a shield, using length instead of a shield to parry. But you are right, even those axeheads on a longer two-handed weapon were still not that large or grossly heavy.
WritingFighter 1 year ago
"It'll certainly disconcert them quite a lot!" Hilarious!
TeflonTron 1 year ago
good point
NewZealfighter 1 year ago
the dark age sword and axe head would be what the danes used ? also was the bronze onea hallstat celtic bronze craft?
kaindrg 1 year ago
IT'S DITTY! lol my favourite words.
napalmcannon 1 year ago
Very fascinating reviews about ancient weaponry, and interesting how you don't seem to favor any particular culture but give the simple facts. I'd thoroughly enjoy if you could give the same treatment to some mesoamerican weapons like the macuahuitl or the gunstock war club. Can't find many documentaries about those and thos that do exist strike me as highly biased (either in favor or against)
starlettine 1 year ago
So, if you have a bardiche, does the fact that a good part of the blade is actually on the pole help balance out the head? Because bardiches have some truly massive blades on them. I guess they're not actually axes, however (?)
LucanJacups 1 year ago
@LucanJacups Never used one. I suspect there must have been a difference to the technique. It strikes me as a compromise between a few other weapons.
lindybeige 1 year ago
"It'll certainly disconcern them quite a lot."
A battle-axe to the head? Noooooooooo! Disconcern? Maybe annoy at best.
tylrfshr12 1 year ago
I read a book in my library while ago. it said the viking axe came about when they were farmers and they got raided, they use their wood axe. Some vikings used that still cause they were dirt poor but others made it really light. Designed for a quick blow to a skull. The Danish axes i read were more lethal pulling out of the enemy than the chop itself.
AnthonyReigns 1 year ago
Thin Blade did greater damage than a big heavy axe head anyway. There where not for fighting fires or cutting wood, They where for killing people, and they needed to be light enough to maneuver around a defense, what can you do with A great big axe besides be a sitting target?
These are the same people that think Samurai Wielded 30 pound clubs.
Gratch2222 1 year ago
On a battleaxe you need only a thin blade since you have no need to push apart pieces of wood (or in that case flesh) you just need to kill people, making them bleed is a good way, therefore you need an edge.
To fell a tree you need to make a vast notch in the tree so the structure is weakened there a broadblade is better. Compared to a splittingmaul even the Axes for wood are fairly slim, but enemys on the battlefield rarely split like dry wood.
IcEye89 1 year ago
@IcEye89 If your enemies are not splitting like dry wood, YOU'RE NOT HITTING HARD ENOUGH!
NoisemakerArrow 1 year ago
A Very nice summary of the use and appearance of real battleaxes.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who try to argue that huge fantasy style axes, dual wielded weapons etc have a basis in reality.
mrbeast85 1 year ago
The saxon huscarls used really heavy "great axes". The axe blades were considerably larger than those of a dane axe
Kingofsomething87 2 years ago
Can you point me to some evidence for this?
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige: I've heard of the housecarls. King Harold used them at the battle of Hastings. Their axes were massive.
thetasters 1 year ago
@thetasters They were "Danish axes". Some are pictured in this video. The real ones are thin.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige true, but those heads are pretty wide and the housecarls carried them on fairly long long handles, 4 plus feet. This reminds me - my friend recently bought a really nice quality throwing axe, and though the purpose was obviously not for fighting in battles, the blades are quite thin over all and super sharp. You really get an idea of how deadly a proper fighting axe could be.
thetasters 1 year ago
@lindybeige indeed i have them those were very thin and they were not that massive they were lon but the axehead was not that big
maarhoefe 1 year ago
I have never come across any axe heads that were "really heavy", except possibly executioner's axes. The heaviest war axes would be pollaxes and halberds, none of which were used by vikings (and even here you have comparatively small axe heads). And on the battlefield, people using such weapons would need some protection from friends with smaller equipment. No offense to them.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
@Kingofsomething87 They have been depicted like that in some documentaries (Like conquest, urgh!) but all the findings that I've seen supports Lindybeige's claim.
You would not want to fight with such a heavy weapon anyway. You'd be exhausted in an instant!
TheScandinavianOne 1 year ago
But what about the increased momentum a heavier axe-head would bring with? Ofc with a sacrifice to your stamina but with the advantage to break the opponents defense with brute force
xpunk1981 2 years ago
Yes, you could make one very heavy bash with a heavier axe, although the enemy would see it coming a long way off. If the axe is too light it becomes ineffective. The equation seems to balance at optimum efficiency with an axe head smaller than fantasists imagine.
lindybeige 2 years ago
So most hand-to-hand axes, used in conjunction with a shield, would look similar to tomahawks?
whowantsabighug 2 years ago
Yes, that's what a tomahawk is.
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige Oh, i was always under the impression that the tomahawk was a throwing weapon.
whowantsabighug 2 years ago
@whowantsabighug The hand axes used in battle where often made so you could throw them, but that did not mean it was smart thing to do.
krullboll 2 years ago 2
Yes, an analogy is that a pistol is a throwing weapon.
lindybeige 2 years ago 2
I have seen pictures of a cast lead sling bullet from Greece ca. 4th - 1st century BC inscribed with a picture of a double-bitted axe.
CommiTsunami 2 years ago
Yes, the symbol was a common one. It may have meant that the slinger was from Crete, which many were.
lindybeige 2 years ago
The sounds are important. Girls don't understand this.
henjokongo 2 years ago
Another great video from the Lindybeige Productions (One man-) team.
Phr0zenFire 2 years ago
Weren't those hammer and mace weapons used in battles a lot smaller (the head part at least) than you see in movies and fantasy, like the axes are?
ps: I don't think Gimli would be quite so bad arse if he used a realistic axe in battle.
pps: On topic of unrealistic weapons, why is it bows used by good guys in fiction seem to be able to kill people instantly with one arrow regardless of where it hits. A hit to a big toe is leathal!
Forscythe80 2 years ago
Because if the effect of the wounds caused by the heroes' arrows were realistic, those heroes might seem cruel. Better that the bad guy's minions die peacefully and quickly.
lindybeige 2 years ago
"Bearded" axes are another way to cut down weight while having a large edge.
rozniy 2 years ago
Making a point about throwing axes if you can
Humantorch00 2 years ago
Well, I've done franciscas, which are throwing axes.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Can you do a video about all this dual-wielding nonsense that seems to just infect the minds of all my fellow fantasy fans?
I would love to see your clear and easy style take on the notion that two weapons must be better than one.
Veyrall 2 years ago
@Veyrall
Shields are wonderful, but two weapons are very effective too. Fighting wise, they're about equal, meaning a guy with a sword and shield is about equal to a guy with two swords.
Sword and axe is a very effective combination - hook the shield or sword with the axe and kill with the sword.
Two things though - shields can stop arrows, and shields are much cheaper than swords. Who's outfitting the army, and what are they paying?
taitungknight 2 years ago
i disagree with you,
im an avid fantasy fan, and i love drizzt as much as the next guy, but i dont think it is entirely impossible, in the context we are talking about, for 2 weapons to be used.
musashi's style was a 2 sword style, and the reason he is so legendary is that we can verify the claims we make of him.
now im not saying that any idiot can pick up 2 weapons and do anything more than tie himself up in them, BUT with enough training it is not ineffective. its just harder.
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
I feel that if two swords were better than sword and shield, then the world would not have been one in which almost everybody from revolting peasant to professional soldier chose sword and shield.
lindybeige 2 years ago
agreed, in no way was i saying it was better.
Creationsofmyown 2 years ago
I wouldn't say that dual wielding swords is better per say but in a one on one fight I'd want two swords over a sword and shield.
I would guess that shields prevailed as the more used because they are more useful in large conflicts. Shield walls, phalanxes, and passive defense against arrows make them wonderful to outfit your army with.
MaseYevon 2 years ago
thats because a shield protects you from arrows, two swords doesnt.
and the point is that its NOT easier to use, but once you get THAT good you do get better, thee main advantage of two swords s really against people like, as you note, longaxemen, probably lighter warriors like for example scouts who would find a shield two unwieldy and didnt really use shields
d surmise them being better at counering two handed weapons like the danish axe or the 'clae moh' or the zwaihander.
elgostine 2 years ago
@elgostine
How does using two swords make you better off against big weapons than single-hander and shield? And indeed, as this has never been done (or even suggested) historically, isn't this just a bit of arm-chair speculation?
Gilmaris 2 years ago
well yes it is speculation bsed on, what the merits and weaknesses of the weapons are, for example, against a danish axe, the shield provides a greater surface to hook using the axe, the argement has to do with the ease of which you can manipulate what your holding to not stop thoe big werapons, wasted energy, but deflect them, though i realise that a shield like a vikings can also do this by rotating it left or right. but it still stands that to kill 2 hander users, its best to shoot them.
elgostine 1 year ago
the reasoning for it being possibly easier is that a sword OR even more interestingly a pair of smaller axes (where you can use the angled junction between the head and haft to help trap weapons a sword you have a much greater potential degree of control over it, you can more easily angle it to eflect strikes like a fencer, but with two swords you can inter cept a larger weapon, also a person wth two swords also is in theory able to travel easier, a shield is much more conspicuous when incognito
elgostine 2 years ago
As for the point on Musashi, the most common interpretation of his style (Nito-ryu) is Katana/wakazashi, long sword/short sword method. Nothing I have ever read indicated that he fought with two Katana. This style is still practiced though it is understood to be challenging. Some research points to possible inspiration from Portuguese swordsman who fought with rapier/main gauche. Never a dominant or favored system of swordsmanship among the Japanese.
henjokongo 2 years ago
I have to correct you on Musashi. His *training* style does indeed involve two swords, but his *fighting* style only used one. He said himself in his Articles on Swordsmanship that his training with two swords "implies nothing special", beyond becoming more proficient in using a single sword one-handed (and training the off-hand, too). There is no record of Musashi ever having actually fought with two swords.
Gilmaris 2 years ago
i started to realize your point awhile ago, looking at tomahawks. tomahawks are battle axes, i think a lot of people forget that
VictorianSlaughter2 2 years ago
Finally somebody is telling the truth behind battle axes. I can't tell you how many arguement I have been in trying to explain the size of battle axe heads and just have people blankly stare at me.
cm207 2 years ago
Brilliant Final Line.
I'm a big fan of axes, I do alot of Bushcraft with my belt hatchet and Forest Axe. Wouldn't confuse them for a battle axe though, fighting axes are a different tool all together (my belt axe would do in a pinch, just like my belt knife would... in a pinch). Even my Small Forest Axe, small for a wood working axe, has a thicker head than the war axe's you see in museum's. And It's a Gransfor, they have traditional European Axe heads, thinner blade than the American style.
APDurrant 2 years ago
Yeah, I was shocked to find out that the longest Dane Axe or Skuggox is roughly four feet. From what I've seen, the fighting techniques with them involve quickly sliding the striking hand down the haft to get a kind of flicking motion, as opposed to the great swings you see on films and such. I remember hearing at some point that Anglo Saxon Huskarls trained in a left handed style to make it easier to get past their generally right handed opponent's shield.
Geshmaal 2 years ago
there you go thinking hollywood again..
ironflea 2 years ago
I would probably only be able to make one chop at my opponent with those fantasy axes, and then I would either have to switch to a lighter weapon
or get killed trying to take another chop with the fantasy axe
Saxappealed 2 years ago
Yep, indeed. In real life, those gigantic fantasy axes would hardly be much better than fighting bare handed (that way you'd at least be faster...).
The only disadvantage of a small axe head I could imagine is that the cutting edge is smaller and that it, depending on the shape, would probably have a tendency to get stuck in the enemy's body.
SkallagrimNilsson 2 years ago
You are just firing these out lately.
Nice job.
chalkiboy 2 years ago
When did you make these videos you have been uploading lately? Because if they aren't old videos, you sure are fast.
Okurkay 2 years ago
They don't take long to shoot. They take far longer to edit. When I get the opportunity, I set the camera up and shoot between four and ten at a time. It's just a bloke talking.
lindybeige 2 years ago