ONE REASON why AXES are HARD TO USE IN COMBAT
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- There is one particular reason why axes are actually trickier to use in actual combat than swords.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#medievalcombat #vikingaxe #axe
"Fundamentally, an axe is a stick with a piece of metal on the end."
It's this sort of deep, biting analysis that keeps me coming back.
My favourite was "A sword or axe is more dangerous than a stick"
There are really only three melee weapons:
1. Stick.
2. Hitty thing onna a stick.
3. Sword.
I would just like to thank you for still being Matt Easton
For now, at least. Next time... who knows?
yes, it's very reassuring
Long may he continue to be!
That's very decent of you. May you also be yourself for quite a long time.
He looks like Matt. Matt has witnesses that he was somewhere else
But can someone with a sword say to an opponent "let me axe you something" with the same effect? I think not.
😂
But he still can put his point trough.
swords man "Lets cut to the chase and get to the point"
Unless he speaks Old English or Middle English, in which case the word could be pronounced 'axe' no matter what weapon he was holding.
Well I mean he sworda could.
GoT Bronn: Do you know how to use that? Tyrion Lannister: l chopped wood once. No, l watched my brother chopping wood.
I saw you kill a man with a shield. You would be unstoppable with an axe.
@@aqufn8908as crazy as that was in the show, shields are actually relatively good weapons 😅
I have read through the comments and no one mentioned it. Technically the lower part of an axe is not a stick, but a club. The weight on the end does not vanish into thin air.
It's a wretchedly bad club, the weight at the end moves the point of percussion near the far end, so hits from below the head are going to be inconsequential by itself.
I remember that the video game "War of the Roses" is the only game I've ever played that accurately depicted this. If you were using an axe or hammer as a weapon then you would have to make sure your swings weren't too close or you'd just hit them with the haft. It added an interesting difficulty to combat, but it also made me appreciate why no other game has tried to replicate it (that I know of).
man, that was a cool title
you could also reverse weapons with 2 heads to use either the cutting or the the hitting bit
also, as a rider you would deal much much more damage if your horse was galloping
The first Mount and Blade kinda did it too. Haven't played the latest one, so can't comment on that. But I recall that when using longer polearms, if you were right next to a guy, you wouldn't be able to do damage with your weapon. There was a certain minimum distance that you had to be in order to get the attack to connect. However, it's been years since I've played the game, so I might be misremembering that.
Some of the Dark Souls games simulated this to some extent. The damage weapons inflicted varied by where on the weapon's hitbox connected to the enemy and some of did more damage further out than others.
@@winedarkemperor Bannerlord does have the same kind of system; iirc, KC:D does, too
@@winedarkemperor Momentum matters in Mount & Blade. So it's not distance as much as how fast the particular part of the weapon is moving, if that makes sense. Essentially, the tip of the weapon always deal more damage as it has more momentum than the grip, and it takes in to account moving speed and rotational speed. So the good players would both move towards the target as well as spin in the direction the swing to impart the most damage. And counter to that, if you move away and spin in the opposite direction of the swing, then you do far less damage.
Not many swordsmiths. Every town had a blacksmith. Every blacksmith could make axe heads. Every peasant conscript was well familiar with axes. Very few were trained with swords.
So for raising an army, axes were cheaper, used less resources, and were wielded more competently by conscripted woodsmen and farmers.
Thats a HUGE advantage to axes vs swords. The logistics alone could make the difference of victory in battle.
bro just use spears
@@lordbubax3929 right. And operate in a regimented phalanx, to keep the enemy from being able to close in where spears are useless.
You're talking about a well trained, standing army like the Legionnaires. Again, way more funding, resources, and training required.
So, going with your argument, the axe filled the same niche as assault rifles do today. A simple, reliable weapon that can be mastered in a timely manner. Whereas the sword and the bow required a lot of training, like a sniper's rifle.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 It's not only about mastering it, because "mastering" swords for use in fight is not that much difficult (actually it's easier to learn the basics of sword fighting to do it at a moderately competent level than it is to be moderately competent at axe fighting, for the reasons discussed in this video).
The main factor behind the axe's popularity was that it was super easy to make.
"Axes and forks" are historically the weapons of the mass conscripts in feudal times, or the weapons of the revolting masses later; meaning, weapons that are easily built, and most times are already found in most agrarian households.
A duel is won by skill and weapon capability. Battles are won by logistics. Many an army was defeated by poor shoe quality, water contamination, or scarcity of equipment/lack of repairs.
I was just pointing out that the strengths/weaknesses of axes vs swords extends well beyond their use in a fight.
Primarily over the years I've found that not many people are willing to engage in combat when I've been holding an axe. :p For legal reasons I'm obviously joking, honest!
My whole life they have sold me on the idea that deterrence is pacifism, I suppose 🤷♀️
Never get your Chopper out in public.
i mean get off my land means alot more when you are holding an axe
Similarly, the TV Licence goons are so much more agreeable when I'm holding my gardening Bowie or my horticultural crossbow. Once, the letters ceased for 3 months! 💅✨
i had the same experience, but i was holding a gun ;)
I heard how a Viking armed with an axe held King Harold’s army back while defending a bridge till a soldier speared him from under the bridge
it happened at Stamford Bridge when the two Kings met. What I am interested in is it possible that a Berserker did this. I am not addressing Etain when I ask you sir I have watched plenty of reenactments and find most of your videos interesting. I feel silly asking but have you considered reenacting that part of the Battle. Maybe even experiment with different weapons. But seriously if I was capable of demonstrating that a man really could defend a bridge or not. As all your friends have good knowledge of weapons it would help prove myth or not as well I hope be fun for you guys. I know I wish I could go on reenactments as I love learning about history and what it felt like to walk in their shoes as it were.
Dont believe everything you hear or read...
@@andreascarlberg3998Who rattled your cage lol
@@andreascarlberg3998 If you choose not to believe what experts have said for centuries that’s up to you
To be fair, people haven't really changed. Even if he had a six shooter, no one wants to be one of the first six.
I sparred a few months ago with a heater shield and an (blunt) axe similar to the one Matt shows here (maybe a slightly smaller axe head), versus a sword and heater shield in modern hema gear. (I wanted to experiment with axe-hooking etc).
And in short it just didn't work out, at all! I am a quite competent fighter but I just couldn't use my axe in any competative way. The axe was light enough, but just because I couldn't risk knocking my opponent's mask in I needed to slow down a little bit, yet the axe felt quite flexible at first. But dude! my opponent just effortlessly and casually ran rings around me with his sword. Tapping and attacking me at will. I had absolutely no chance even though he did take it easy as well. It was hilariously onesided.
It did leave me to believe that the axe, when used for war in this match up would needed to be used quite heavy handed and forceful or be at a severe disadvantage. Making it unsuitable for our sport context. It was a big eye opener for us.
I agree with the assesment. We have to give up some mentalities of combat for the sake of saftey. Safety first! We dont want to seriously injure our sparring partners, but then we lose the mentality of combat and warfare where you should be exceedingly agressive and violent. I definitely agree the axe is a more agressive weapon, you should be getting in really close fast and hitting hard, but that is an extreme risk to sparring partners.
@@ArmouredProductions agreed! Safety first! That why we just couldn't 'get it right'. Oh well. 😁
Axes really are tools first and foremost. Some one confident using a broom handle could win against it. If no armor was involved.
@@Armchair.extraordinaire-bo5mv early historical warriors do not agree with you. There are many examples of fighting axes in periods that do lack armour. There is a huge difference between a tool-axe and a fighting axe as well.
@@Armchair.extraordinaire-bo5mv A well made fighting axe will be a far, far nimbler thing than a regular hatchet or felling axe.
If you use one handed axe, you should have a shield in other hand - this will allow you to control how far is your opponent and hit him with correct part of the axe.
This
one-handed axes unlike certain swords like sabers just don't work that effectively on their own as a duelling weapon
The point of axe fighting is that you come in with a swing while using your shield to protect yourself. If the opponent steps in you have to break ground and step back because you're at a huge disadvantage with an axe if you start a pushing match against someone who can stab you. Fighting with axe and shield is keeping your distance, keeping low, circling, and feinting until your opponent gives you a chance to come in with a killing blow. If you get too close to your opponent without striking you're as good as dead.
@@JerehmiaBoaz agreed
Not only do you have to judge the distance more accurately to put the head of your weapon on your target, but with the majority of its weight out at the end of the shaft, if you miss, you have a greater amount of momentum that you have to cancel in order to recover your weapon to a ready position, so while you can get a greater impact when you hit, it's not going to be as fast as a blade, where the weight is more evenly distributed along the weapon's length. It may not be a _huge_ difference, but it's like the observation you made about the 1788 pattern heavy cavalry sword -- if it's heavier, or more unbalanced, you're going to be slower with it, and therefore at a disadvantage against someone with a more wieldy weapon.
You can't fight offensively with a short axe, you have to keep your distance, keep low because you can't parry attacks to your legs, and keep circling and feinting until the opponent makes a mistake and offers you a chance to come in with a killing blow. Every time you enter the opponent's measure you're at a significant risk of getting stabbed so you better make sure you only enter on your initiative and stay out of the opponent's stabbing range otherwise (so circle the opponent just outside of it and step back if he comes in until he starts to overextend).
@@JerehmiaBoazwith just a short axe against a sword, i mostly agree
With a short axe against a dagger, i mostly disagree
Against a sword but with shields on both sides? I will try my best to be close enough to lick you 😊
When fighting with an axe, 'recovering to a ready position' isn't generally the optimal choice after you 'miss'. If you hit them with the haft of the axe instead of the blade, that means you have a hook on them. You're better off moving to manipulating them than recovering to a position to let them do anything in the next action.
I agree. When I read the title of this video, I assumed that overcommitting and recovery would be the reason why axes are hard to use in combat.
Something that highlights this kind of interaction in practice is Dequitem’s armored fights with maces, axes, and other hafted weapons. The striking distance and wind up greatly affects how hard they can strike with the weapons. And he highlights that with a long sword, that you can thrust without much windup, especially with the different guards and stances.
It was fascinating seeing the collective narrative shift from swords being useless against armor and axes/maces being armor crushers to swords being a very capable weapons in armored combat and axes/maces being a bit more complicated to wield against another armored opponent. Something that’s not talked about or thought about much.
For a sword, the center of percussion, or that part of the sword that would contact your opponent when you’re trying to cut them, is as small as the cutting edge on any axe.
On an arm, yes. Across the chest or back, not even close. The sword would produce a shallow slash, the axe would drive deep.
yes, though the point is that even when striking with parts that are not the center of percussion, the sword will still do enough damage to create a wound. Possibly a debilitating one. This is also not figuring in push and draw cuts.
Yeah, I've gotten my first sharp sword a week ago (a Cold Steel Gladius Machete), and the borders are almost useless to cut from outside the target, only the edge is useful for cutting. The thrust is devastating though, and the borders help cut very well from inside once you have penetrated a target. Wasn't sure if it was because my blade isn't sharpened enough or not. Tried on empty bottles. The edge is still the size of my hand, so it's still usable, but I admit I'd like to have it cut with the borders too.
Several hundred years ago i held off a whole battalion on a bridge with an axe. It was definitely an upgrade from the jawbone of an ass.
And then some a**hole stabbed you in the nuts with a spear?
Lol nice.
It wasnt about axe, but about tactical position (narrow bridge) and you were high on mushrooms. Btw. that accident on Stamford bridge when you killed 40 english men is probably myth, not historical fact.
@@23Disciple lol. The reports of my demise were greatly exaggerated.
@@Gterr1971 I understood that reference.
When it comes to the tomahawks in the Americas and difficulties in their use (as a native that does reenactment/living history and martial arts here and there) it really depends on the axe, a trade hawk from the French is going to behave differently than a Missouri war axe, which will also be different than an Apache hawk, etc etc. the weights, handle types, blade thickness and all will dictate that. But if I had to say if one was to have the advantage over the dirk or Bowie it would be the Missouri, if fact I think you you have your axe maker friend make you one, you would not be disappointed. It’s jokingly described by one of my HEMA friends as the Dane axe of the Mississippi
As a person who fight primarily with axes myself, I always find something useful to take with me in every special you do on axes.
Always love a good chat about axes, Matt! Cheers!
Ooh! I look forward for the Richard III episode!
Bruce and de Bohun faced off in what became a celebrated instance of single combat.[14] Bohun charged at Bruce and, when the two passed side by side, Bruce split Bohun's head with his axe.
I'll add one more thing. From personal experience, I was dismembering a dead goat carcass for the dogs (we found him cold so not great for human consumptiion) and I didn't want to get my good gear dirty or spend more time on it than I could, so I on a whim picked up the rustiest, dullest wood axe lying there, a short one. I was amazed at how well it chopped through flesh and bone, in a way other bladed tools don't when they're in ill repair. So there's definitely something to axes in practice.
Love the video.
just a thought here... If you're a woodsman or somebody who used to using an ax... Your brain targeting system is going to be way better, right off... So I can completely understand how an axe could be a more difficult weapon for beginners, But for the farmer or the woodsman, it might be the right choice, even for their first battle, because they're used to it. For me, here in texas, of course, we love our guns and blades.Etc... I own rifles and amount them an AR15...But i've probably used my shotgun more than anything, because i've been bird hunting and taken thousands of shots at moving targets... Even though an AR fifteen might be a better choice for some situations like
more than two or three people.... I'm so used to my shotgun. Hitting moving targets, reloading on the move quickly...I might would choose it, And it might be a better choice, as long as I didn't have too many enemies in front of me. The point is the things we think are difficult, like throwing a tomahawk... That might be the simplest and best thing for somebody who's done it from the time they could walk on.... I guess what i'm trying to say is the best choice of weapon depends on who's using it?
I mean it's "just" hand-eye coordination. That's coming with practice, same as in tennis or badminton, you'll relatively quickly adapt to the length and where to strike.
There's weapons more adapted to X ou Y situation, but I do agree, experience can make a huge difference.
Im from the Austrian mountains and used axes to process firewood and bigger ones to split logs from the day I was just physically able to do so - so I do not really see Mats point - you have to aim the ax head to hit where you want- yes, indeed - but that just comes natural after years of wood work
For context, the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian army in WWI re-introduced the "fokos" as a trench-warfare weapon. Appearantly it enjoyed an advantage over long blades (bayonets, assault knives attached or not) and similar things and after some years of fighting, there wasn't a significant difference between the Italian, Russian and Hungarian conscripts' skills.
speaking from a early medieval reenactment context, i've been fighting with and training people use an axe for just over a decade and the thing that i've learned the most with axe over sword fighting, is that the axe fighter really has to think ahead in the fight, you really have to think two or three steps ahead and you have to work your opponent into the position you want to make the best strike, because as you rightly say, your area of hit potential is way smaller than a sword, so you need to use the axes advantages to move your opponent to where you want them. As i say i'm only speaking from an early medieval context, so axe and shield, i can't speak for later periods but i imagine the principles remain the same.
just my 2 pence
Lynn Thompson has done some great videos demonstrating tomahawks/axes. He mentions using the top of a spiked hawk like a T to block and parry as well using the beard to hook and control. This doesn’t fix the blade length issue but does point to some options a long blade may not have. (pun intended)
To be fair, it's a bit of an oversimplification to say "hitting someone with any part of a sword's/knife's blade will have an effect" because it takes comparatively VERY little protection to completely negate damage from that sort of cut. Like that's a true statement if the opponent is butt naked.
Jeans could have blocked some hits that got me a point 😂
Im a hema practitioner, and one of the best illustrations of this point broadly is the video game Exanima. The game takes into account what part of the weapon hits the opponent, and the momentum of the strike. While I love axes and maces, they take a lot more precision impart much effect.
I'd guess this is somewhat mitigated against better armour in that swords and knifes really need to hit some kind of opening whereas that poleaxe is going to ruin an opponents day no matter where you hit them. Armour being basically invulnerable to blades but certainly not against a pick or hammer.
even then they aren't the anti-armour weapons that people believe they were.
Like a guy in full plate could take multiple hits with a hammer before surrendering
@@kimashitawa8113 still a lot less hits than it would take with a sword. But yes, they didn't magically nullify armor's protective qualities.
As a layman, I'd like to express my thoughts: 1) Axes were (and are) obiquitous. Easy to produce, and up to the modern age, every farmstead had several in their posession. People were used to using them.. It was an everyday tool. 2) Axes were not used in 1:1 combat in pitched battles. They were a readily available weapon by the rank and file troops, at no extra cost to the bearer. In the medieval times usually non-warrior people were either summoned by a lord or hired for money. They were not used by people trained in combat-at-arms. And if Richard III proves that, then it's just another sign of that he wasn't succumbed by ordinary troops. Which, in itself, would have been a revolutionary discovery. 3) If you're a rank-and-file soldier in the medieval times, you are (hopefully) standing side by side with at least 10-20 people on both your sides, and many behind. And, as you have pointed out before, with a shield. So, the disadvantage of not being able to swing your axe around rapidly dimishes. You have an axe and a shield. You know how to use both. You're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with your regiment. As long as you're not left alone, it's a good deterrent.
Was it inefficient? Yes, compared to what must have been elite weapons at the time.
Was it economical? Yes, as you could get thousands of troops who were already familiar with how to use it, and they had their own.
This is still a period where everyone had to equip themselves. (edit: most troops had to supply their own uniform and gear up until the 20th century. And is some ways, still do, if what they want is not standard issue).
You're saying this like all this isn't stuff he hasn't covered before in some form or another. The man's gotta make content.
I often hear people citing this idea of "It was a widely available tool", but the thing is that an axe intended for war is *not* a tool. A battle axe, or any other axe (terminology being what it is) intended to be actually used in combat has a blade far thinner than an axe intended for chopping wood. If you took a battle axe to a forest to do some chopping, you'd be mangling the blade, and it'd suck for that task anyway, being light and simply not meant for it. And if you took a normal woodcutting axe to the battlefield, you'd be swinging around an unwieldy, overly heavy thing. Which, obviously, did happen (plenty of people have been forced to use tools as weapons), but is by no means what you *want* to be happening.
And before there's ten different people jumping on me shouting about how you could totally kill someone with a chopping axe, then yeah, obviously. You could kill a man with a rock or a pitchfork too. Neither is intended to be a weapon, and both are suboptimal. It's the same for a normal, everyday common use axe. I'm merely pointing out that this conceit that a battleaxe was interchangeable with a common tool (which goes both ways; I often see people claiming that carrying a battleaxe would mean you'd also have a good tool for various tasks you needed to do on the side, which is roughly as smart as saying the same thing about a sword), and that it was widely available as an utility thing, is false.
Axes were ubiquitous. Axes *intended* to be used as weapons were not (no more than any weapon of war was, I mean).
@@goblinrat6119 Even bad pizza is still pizza. What I mean is, whether an axe is made for chopping wood or for warfare, getting hit with either one will accomplish the goal - you'll be maimed or dead either way.
Since we're standing so tightly packed together in rank and file *imagining the nice description* that we can hardly swing... I think I'd prefer a spear (or a very light pitchfork/trident, which I know to use too, since I fish every lent) :D
p.s.: I'd say the Swedish regular (non mercenary) troops of the 30 years war introduced uniforms, but mid 17th century french at latest. (I'm not willing to count "just capes" of some Habsburg regiments in the 16th, although those already had rank insignia)
I completely agree. You might want to check my comment.
There was a video on Norse axe skills. Especially with a bearded axe is that can hook on a shield and pull it away. This also goes for hooking on to a sword and pulling it away.
Did a bit of HEMA, used both axe and a sword. The Axe was fun, but lacked the versatility of the sword.
The one advantage I was able to find with the axe, it is useful for hooking and pulling. Pulled a few shields down and Dane Axesz which allowed those in my formation to hit the target. Did leave me exposed, however.
I follow you for years, and still understanding new stuffs. Thanks.
I used a axe quite a bit in my early SCA days. Because opponents are used to blocking a sword not something with an overbite, I would often be able to strike them with a telling blow that wouldn't have hit with a sword. As shield blocking became more dynamic, the advantage went away and I switched to a sword.
Thank you for what you do matt.
this is something i noticed in the new Half Sword playtest physics based game. you really had to consider where the “area of concentrated force” is on a weapon, cause too close and something like an axe or a mace becomes much less effective. And conversely you often see draw cuts being really useful when you get really close with swords. A tradeoff being that those concentrated force bits can often hit way harder in terms of pure concussive force.
of course the game isn’t wholly realistic, but it made me apreciate a lot of the basic bio-mechanics in fighting.
you should check it out Matt, its a really interesting experience. it also really made me appreciate how different degrees of armor effect how you engage others. (also don’t confuse the playtest with the demo like I did!)
Very interesting video, especially for a Hungarian guy like me, as the first axe you are holding is very similar to the traditional shepherd’s axe (called “fokos” in Hungarian) what is a very traditional weapon in Hungary and countries around Hungary. The “fokos” dates back to centuries, usually as “poor men’s” weapon, or common, non noble people’s weapon. There are several things lead to have this shepherd’s axe developed and used throughout the centuries. First, it was easy and cheap to make. Only needed a little of the metal part, the head, and almost any blacksmith could make it. And even the cheapest ones were made off molded brass or bronze. They were really only last ditch weapons, and not much use as a tool. But the steel ones also were used as a tool.
The handle could made by any man, not needed any special skills. The handle of the shepherd’s axe usually made of several type of woods, always some kind of hard wood. The black locust brought to Hungary during the late 18th century to tie, got immobilize the sand of the Hungarian Great Plains. Also, turned out it is a great firewood, handle wood for tools, construction wood and also do not forget about the now “Hungaricum” “akác méz”, the black locust honey. Before this plant was available the oak, the hornbeam, the ash and especially the “dogwood” (Cornus mas, cornel, Cornelian cherry, European cornel or Cornelian cherry dogwood) was and is maybe the greatest handle material. It is virtually impossible to break, it is heavy and very hard wood (I know, I have some walking sticks from it for excursions and outdoor activities).
There were times when carrying weapons were strictly forbidden for non nobles. That period was when pocket knives, penny knives became common, and also, a special form of the shepherd’s axe. This version had no permanently fixed head on the handle. Its handle had different thickness at the two ends. Where the head was that end was thicker, and they put the head on the thinner end, and let the head slipping through the whole handle to the thick end, where it stuck - sometimes a firm hit on the ground helped the head stuck even more firmly - and it was good to go. During the everydays it was only a walking stick, the head was in the pocket, or bag (haversack, called “tarisznya” in Hungarian), and when it needed, it was place on and put it into action.
The shepherd’s axe (“fokos”) was symbol of several wars, revolutions as well. Hungarian revolution against the Austrian House of Habsburg’s troops (the “Labanc”) Hungarian freedom fighters (the “Kuruc”) used the “fokos” many times during the Rákóczi's War of Independence. But the “fokos” still found its way to the battlefield, even during the Great War, aka First World War, where Hungarian troops fought (usually used in the trenches as a melee weapon).
As for civilian use, the shepherd’s axe was very popular with animal herders, especially among pig herders (called “kanász” or “kondás” in Hungarian). Even there is a type of the “fokos”, which named after them, “kanász fokos” or “kanász balta” (“balta” is the term for small axe, or hatchet).
The type of the head could be several type. There were some with pointy, peak like side opposite to the edged side. These were clearly weapons only. I think these were called “Székely fokos”, the Székely people are a Hungarian ethnic group lives in Transylvania. There were also some with hammer like, flat side opposite to the edged side. These could be used as tools very well.
The pig herders didn’t carry much things with them, the “fokos” was their “EDC tool”, their tool hatchet as well. But also it made good use against wild animals - feral dogs, wolves for example - and bandits, outlaws (the typical Hungarian outlaw called “betyár”, and they were also among the users of the “fokos”). The shepherd’s axe, the “fokos” is deeply in the Hungarian culture. There was a dance, when two man, (many times the pig herders) did “symbolic fight” using the “fokos”. Also, Hungarian martial art, the “baranta” uses the “fokos” as a weapon of choice (beside the stick). Also, during traditional weddings the best man carries a “fokos” with (Hungarian national colored) ribbon around its handle what has written on the bride’s and bridegroom’s name, and the wedding’s place and date. Sometimes a simple stick is used instead of the “fokos”, but for the real traditional feeling the “fokos” is the right choice.
There are several blacksmith in Hungary who makes very nice replicas of the traditional shepherd’s axe, “fokos” nowadays. Some of them are modernized, some of them are made like a ceremonial grade piece of art, but some are made like the original ones, “the poor man’s best friend”. One of them is Ádám Thiele (nicknamed as “Bucavasgyúró”), I put some link for his works. Anyway, he has a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Mechanical Engineering and doing blacksmithing as a hobby, and experimenting and studying the old technics.
www.bucavasgyuro.net/home.html
yes, but if you use an axe as a tool daily you get very conferrable with the distance and edge alignment.
some free training there you would not get with a sword ;)
A woodcutting axe and a battle axe are different enough that I don't think the cross training is specifically helpful. Using a woodcutting axe will help you with edge alignment and grip strength and some swinging mechanics, but I think those apply equally to combat swords and combat axes.
I don't actually have combat experience with an axe though, only woodcutting and swordfighting experience, so maybe I'm missing something.
@@holyknightthatpwns you are missing a lot
@@holyknightthatpwns I agree - the trees and carving blanks that I chop don't fight back or move about very much 😂
Well a baseball or tennis ball moves pretty fast and most don’t have much difficulty learning how to hit them with the meat of the bat or racket so 🤷🏽♂️
@@dgoodman1484 projectiles move in much more predictable ways than people, and also aren't trying to hit you. I think there's a lot less complexity to be worrying about in those sports.
Before I say anything I would like to state that I am by no means an authority on axes, melee combat, nor historical combat. It seems to me that axes would serve a totally different purpose in combat than a sword or a dagger would and to some extent would have different goals in terms of combat. From my limited understanding of the armored and shielded eras of combat, swords were primarily a weapon for the elite and occasionally back up weapons for archers, whereas axes would be more common in the melee along with weapons like spears. In a crowded space like a battlefield, it would make sense to me to have a weapon of variable reach like an axe that can be used to grapple shields and limbs as well as making lethal attacks. A sword (once again 0 experience in HEMA or any other relevant experience/knowledge) seems that it would struggle in the chaos of a close quarters brawl that I imagine the front line would be in. On a separate note, a sword's battlefield tactical philosophy seems to be to wound an adversary enough to disable them or prepare them for a lethal blow whereas an axe would be to get the adversary's weapon or shield out of the way or to grapple the opponent in order to prepare for a lethal blow. In short, an axe seems like it is made to be focused on the final strike where a sword would be more balanced towards wounding the enemy throughout combat.
I have seen so much videos about ancient and medieval weapons that I learned nothing new in this video...
But I still enjoyed watching it :)
One thing to remember with axes is that historically most people had experience wielding axes as tools and so had a lot of muscle memory for swinging them, so were better at hitting things with them!
Hitting a static object has absolutely nothing to do with trying to hit a person that's trying to avoid getting hit while also trying to kill you at the same time.
The stress and adrenaline of a real fight to the death for someone who only ever used a non battle axe for chopping wood would have far more significant of an effect than the ability to hit a static object, which you can do with literally anything in any way you want, no problem.
@@kevinlobos5519 So boxers don't hit heavy bags and they never used pells for sword training historically to build muscle memory . . .
@@bubbagump2341 I never said that, those are your words, not mine.
I'm just saying what I stated in my comment. Which is that swinging a somewhat similar object to a weapon with the intent of chopping down other inanimate objects translate poorly to fighting. Might make you fitter and used to swing forcefully but that's about it, and can be achieved by numerous other jobs and tasks.
Tool axes are only similar to battle axes in looks. They are handled and used in very different ways. Same could be said of someone who has trained to fight with a nimble battle axe but never in his life chopped down a tree or handled a tool axe, he would perform poorly at that task in particular and would only be familiar with a tool that looks similar but functions very differently.
There’s a secondary reason why axes are hard to use: edge alignment. It needs to be closer to perfect than it does with a sword. If your edge alignment is slightly off with a sword, you’ll still cut, just not as well. However, the same degree of rotational error holding a axe haft can result in no cut at all. The reason is that the blade’s edge on an axe is further from the centre of rotation than on a sword. So some edge alignment errors are still effective with a sword that are not with an axe.
I'm a bit unconvinced about this, and I'll admit I have no experience with battle axes, but I did my share of cutting firewood with a wood axe, and missing edge alignment never seemed that much of an issue. If you get the aim right, it'll somewhat self correct. The weight of the head also helps push the head forward, even if it's a little sideways. It's got that momentum that's hard to stop.
Maybe that's a bit different with a battleaxe that's lighter and thinner? I don't know I haven't tried that.
Did try some cutting with a katana tho; there edge allignment feels really easy to mess up. I'm guessing because you have less of that weight and consequent momentum, so even a little bit of force to the side of the blade's enough to stop it.
Also with a lot, or even with most swords you need to do more of a cutting motion rather than just a chop, which is more difficult.
Can you talk about how much and what type of training soldiers received throughout history?
What are your thoughts on weapons like the Nepalese kora or the Congolese ikakalaka? It seems that they could have the best of both worlds: they hit hard like an axe toward the distal end, but they're bladed all the way down so they can still cut if you hit closer to the hand.
I am curious about his thoughts on blade shapes like the Ikakalaka
No mention of bearded axes?
Having an extended blade helps considerably, especially on onehanded axes and you can pull if you hit with the handle.
That's what I was thinking when Matt brought up push/pull cuts. Sure, a sword could probably handsaw some damage onto someone, but an axe with a decent beard or point (actually, like the one he was demonstrating!) could help you get control of their body.
There’s always exceptions-I’d recommend looking more into historic spike tomahawks. They averaged around ~8-10 oz (~250 grams), head and handle. A big knife of equivalent length winds up weighing more-requires much more steel for such a long edge. So historic spike tomahawks are faster and more nimble than knives of equivalent size, and they achieve maximum effect at maximum reach. I make tomahawks with chopping edges at just 1-3/8” long, and these easily bury into pig heads with arm motion alone. A big knife at equivalent reach is either raking the tip or inflicting a shallow stab-sure that’s having an effect on target, but not nearly as effective as a chop through the skull. The spike side of a spike tomahawk also opens up options for when targets get inside the arc of the chop-a simple twist and retraction can pull the spike into the opponent-the tomahawk becomes a meathook on a stick. Great videos-I always enjoy your content.
That's why the bearded axes were used with their longer edges
I think in close in fighting that you didn't touch on is you can shift your grip up and down on the shaft of the axe which is what makes it terrifying in a close quarter range where you'd be using knives. It was known that it was extremely hard to predict where the axe blows would actually be coming from. Watch tomahawk technique videos and stories of why frontiersmen were terrified of fighting guys who were skilled with the axe.
Another consideration is the hooking/draw cut aspect of a bearded axe. I’ve heard that they were used to stab/cut should your swing go long and to pull shields off line to set up a second strike.
When I was younger and hitchhiking back and forth between Connecticut and Arizona every year from 1984 to 2001 I would make a fighting"tool" of some sort, the last one I made was from 2 of those hay cutter blades and a piece of bed frame each triangular blade had 2 serrated edges and the flat part that was riveted to the cutter frame so I took a couple of bolts washers and nylon threaded lock nuts cut the bed frame at about a foot cut the corner in half because I wanted flat not angle drilled my 2 holes and made a tomahawk
As someone who chops a lot of wood to heat his home in the winter, this is so spot on. Especially once you start getting tired, it can be hard to make sure you hit the log with the metal part of the axe and not the wooden stick.
Everything you said is generally true, but I think you overestimate the "difficulty" in using an ax. I say this because in the past hand tools were used daily by most people. So while the ax certainly has challenges to its use, vast numbers of people would be somewhat to very accustomed to its use. Before the use of gas, oil, and electricity for heating and cooking, nearly every household had a hatchet or machete around the world to make kindling and many had axes for firewood and other tasks. In the "First World" we've forgotten how common their use was just a hundred years ago. While generally not moving targets, the value of muscle memory from thousands of swings a year can not be overstated. Of course, this applies to swords and knives as well as common agricultural tools like flails and scythes. Based on a couple of machete fights and machete vs. hand sickle that I've seen in the past, it seems that attacks come fairly naturally to wielders but counters take at least a moment to begin to figure out. In the few life and death fights I saw, the man with the better defense won or was less injured.
Side note: the percentage of fights that ended with both opponents seriously injured and bleeding is astonishing. In several cases I know of both fighters died within the week from blood loss and infection of injuries readily addressed by timely modern medicine. Others lost considerable use of one or more limbs.
I'm not sure if I dare to ask where you've seen those fights, but i will ask: No shields, right?
Maybe we should differentiate countries by time on purpose ^^ There are surely parts of the world, that still are living like in the olden. I'm kinda happy cause of the reminder that I could experience quite a bit of it, our mountain hut in Eastern Tyrol w/o electricity (but at least reachable by dirt road), rural parts of Thailand were the 60s (except the majority of vehicles) were obvious, the sad greyness of Culloden Muir or the windy emptyness of Land's End.
Thanks for reminding me, that the World is beautiful still 🥲
@@AND-od5jt I was in the rural Philippines and the men involved were farmers, not professional fighters. Because of the usefulness as an all purpose tool and because of the poor law and order situation, men wore their bolos[machetes] every time they went to the fields[mostly paddies] outside the village. Disputes generally involved liquor or jokes poorly taken. In several cases the men were relatives or best friends. Some of the fights lasted less than a minute. The winner was generally full of remorse and turned themselves in. The longer the fight lasted the greater the chance that others could intervene.
The Swiss pike and Spanish halberd was an axe and spear in one. It give the soldier a couple of options, depending on the circumstances.
Curious on how Native American Tomahawks held up against European Sabres?
Great question
Recently one of my HEMA buddies brought one to training and fought against a spadroon user with it while using a dagger in his off-hand. Now, he wasn't trained to use that weapon and lost most rounds because of that, but it became clear that the longer reach and better hand protection of his opponent were crucial advantages. It would be the same for sabers, I imagine. However, if a more capable person was able to consistently pull the opponent's weapon or arm to the side with the axe, things might look differently.
Indians ambush against much smaller forces. Rarely large pitched battles.
The tomahawk would be at some disadvantage if you're talking about unarmored single combat between the two & don't include throwing. With throwing in the mix, the tomahawk possibly has the advantage if the wielder can throw well & they start far enough apart.
that's kind of a tricky question because it really, REALLY depends on who's using what weapon, more so than usual.
Outside of the cavalry, most european officers really didn't bother training to use their swords, they were just something to gestured with in combat for emphasis. The reality of european style warfare at the time was officers are there to give orders, if he has to actually fight sword in hand everything's gone terribly wrong so how well he can use that sword is pretty irrelevant.... Obviously you will find exceptions, but that's the general attitude most armies had
contrast that to the natives who, more often than not, had a fairly strong warrior culture that put emphasis on feats of individual bravery, meaning the average tomahawk user is probably going to be fairly proficient with it. If he's going to war he's expecting to get his tomahawk dirty at some point, so odds are really good he's a better individual fighter than the guy with the saber
If you're asking of a technical level, the saber is hands down a better weapon design for combat. That's kind of just a fact, the saber is one of the best sword designs out there and that's not really up for debate. If you're asking how the two matched up in practical terms you'd probably be hard-pressed to get a clear cut answer from historical sources. despite being technologically inferior, the tomahawk was likely more often in the hands of the more skilled user, leading to a rather murky conclusions.
Anyone who’s chopped wood knows how easy it can be to miss, especially when you’re tired
I do a lot of Reenactment, and we use swords, and axes and spears other pole arms. We don't count hits in our system which hit with the haft of a pole weapon. This is almost never an issue with a one handed axe or mace, it occasionally happens with larger axes such as Dane axes but is only really frequent at all in trying to cut with glaives or halberds, long pole arms. The bigger deal with hand axes is catching the handle when it is swung at you.
Well that and head weighted weapons are almost always shorter than swords and slower to change direction so feints are harder riposting is harder combinations are harder.
I made a billhook out of a beet hook (which is a short handled hooked knife), since I was a kid I had my dad weld the blade (which is fairly heavy, about 1/4 inch) to a shovel socket from a worn out shovel, and put that on a regular shovel handle, that proved sturdy enough to chop down trees, so if you use a heavy duty handle a poleax can be quite durable, but then it becomes heavy!
Even now I sometimes miss with a sledge hammer (and hit with the handle), very annoying but more common the more tired you get! It's very easy to see why people didn't fight with big honking weapons, and for obvious reasons.
Hitting a chainmail (which majority of MEA use) with a SWORD will do nothing to the target, while using a talon on axe it will guarantee penetration to a chainmail. IF you cant a tree with axe, then it's NOT HARD to use. Well majority of militia are also a farmer who used axe in their daily life.
Nice to see you again, Matt! I thought I'd just mention something you might find interesting: In regions of Europe abutting the Steppe, like Poland, Hungary, Croatia etc., (not forgetting the Byzantine Empire), the cavalry axe was used as a secondary weapon by cavalry, along with the lance, estoc, sabre, bow-or pistol. Its main use was cracking the opposition's helmets.
Just a little FYI.
Makes sense as the premier medieval naval weapon of the Vikings because the utility of it as a repair tool.
Доброго времени суток, уважаемый Мэт Истон. Спасибо за ваши видео! Смотрю вас из России и занимаюсь HEMA. Спасибо что не забываете о зрителях, что смотрят вас не из праздного любопытства как развлекательный контент.
Желаю вам всего самого наилучшего в жизни и фехтовании, а каналу -- процветания!
Robert the Bruce after demolishing Humphrey De Bohun, "I have spoiled me a good axe" Since he split the fellow's helmet with it I'm not surprised.
I've snapped a few axes over the years splitting logs because of a few too many mishits on the shaft
I think there is a lot of 21st century man perspective applied to this review of an ancient battle ax vs sword. As if the the ax’s proportion of handle to cutting edge is a limitation. The folks who used these in battles didn’t spend all day sending emails and then put their laptops down to go to the park and dabble in a Saturday larping session. They didn’t toss back a few cold ones and dabble in ax-throwing at cousin Frankie’s bbq party. Everything for 99% of the population was a hand tool for one’s livelihood/ survival in that age. They knew nothing else. Using an ax was second nature. A longsword was more a rich man’s weapon. Or a better-funded professional soldier’s. And while all that cutting surface on a sword is scary and impressive, I bet only 3 people ever died from the first third of a blade and one unlucky bastard fell from the full blade at once. A bunch of pokes in close quarters and a lot of chops by the last bit from horseback or a swing on foot. Kinda like a lowly spear and an ax combined.
Agreed. Swords have been romanticized but a spear fighter will take down a swordsman more than not when encountering the other.
I agree with everything you stated except not tossing back a few cold ones and axe throwing. Beer and Axe throwing have been good clean BBQ fun for over two thousand years. If your Cousin Frankie wasn't inviting you to those parties...Sorry man, you missed out.
Particularly in armour, stepping into a blow by an axe or pole axe make sense because if the wood part hits you, you're fine. And once you get inside the reach, they can't really choke up on it effectively or "half axe" without losing all of the power.
One of the oldest weapons - a stick - does not actually have the same limitations as an axe. The longer sticks - like a Japanese Jo (roughly a short staff, standing about long enough to reach up to your solar plexus) - can thrust, strike, block, and bind. My Sensei in Japan noted that to a topologist it is really a stretched out orb, elongated. It really has not end (although it looks like it has two ends). The Japanese riot police, under the guidance of men like Kuroda Ichitaro, were trained to use the Jo because of its versatility. By comparison, the Japanese Katana has similar limitations to the axe: the business end of the sword is really only about 6”. And by the way, the Jo properly wielded can kill with one blow to the head or neck or temple, and can disable with a strike to the wrist or elbow, after which the person struck that way can be finished off.
Very good point. My big issue with axes is that if you block a sword, the blade will slide can cut yoir fingers
nice vid and interesting take, ive only very recently started the sport Buhurt and its interesting that at least in my club that axes are more common and preferred over an arming sword or falchon because of the fact that you can grab the shaft, again i understand that one is a sport and therefore has rules that must abide by, in the case of buhurt its that no stabbing or piercing strikes , but the axe allows for a swing to the head and then into a grapple and takedown.
If you hit the opponent with the handle of the axe, use it like a hook and pull him/her/it/whatever else of balance and hit "see above" in the back with your offhand axe aiming for the spine.
An axe is a very useful hook in close combat.
I grew up in rural central Florida, spending my boyhood either hunting, camping, scouting or tracking in lakes and swamps and wetlands and always carried a tomahawk with me...when I got to Vietnam as a U.S. Recon Marine I carried the same tomahawk the 18 months i was in country. I had to use it once in combat and when I pulled it out I think it scared the hell out of the NVA soldier that I hacked on.
Have short sword and 1.5 lbs hatchet that are about the same length, it's been interesting comparing them, deadly in different ways.
I'd probably prefer sword, but hatchet is lighter and a more useful tool.
Great subject for a video
Axe vs Sword is hard to gauge, because real fights would be a lot more dynamic and blundery than re-enactment, because any armour that can be use to block a sword, would be used to close a gap by a stronger and or better armoured opponent. An axe swung hard enough can break a sword block a lot easier, an axe can be thrown, followed up with a dagger. If you are bigger, you may choose to shoulder someone and enter a brawl, hoping to knock em over and, axe, axe, axe, rather than elegant taps while standing. Formation fighting, a smallish axe could be good as any short weapon in confined space, but in combination with spears etc from your m8's behind. They where pretty popular for a reason :)
People used axes as daily tools. Sword like tools were a thing. But less common. And one of the best advantages of a hafted weapon, used in on hand or two, is that if you miss with the ideal striking surface you can use the head to hook the enemy. Where as with a sword you just get a shallow ineffective cut, which might not even pass though structured clothing commonly worn by swordsmen.
The biggest advantage of axe-type weapons is that they require really little in the way of harder-than-wood material. Which is either expensive (metal) or very heavy (stone). So it's also about economy.
Philippines stick was used because a crushing wound is instantly painful. Combined with a disarm technique. A cut wound takes time for the nerves to react. One machete could supply several sticks in short order. Stick and knife was trained. Steel quality was also a factor.
These are the warriors that Americans developed the .45 cal bullet to stop.
I laughed when he said they used sticks to simulate bladed weapons when 2 sticks was a primary weapon in their martial arts. They were able to use them at an extremely fast rate of attacks that not only overwhelm the enemy but cause a lot of pain and damage.
I expected you to say something about options too.
With the axe, or at least most axes, you must swing and hit with the small striking area against your target area, giving relatively limited movement.
With a longer blade you usually have a lot more options: tip cuts, draw cuts, thrusts, swing, chop, and you can also arguably defend easier: there's more to deflect, parry, and block with while also still presenting a danger to the opponent. Feints are also easier, as you can redirect a blade far faster and easier than with the swinging momentum of the axe.
Besides the shorter, smaller area of impact you also have less defensive options with it compared to a sword due to the weighting and general shape. That means your attacks, which are now harder to land directly, must hit or you will be left quite open, relative to how a sword functions. The sword rebounds a bit quicker, and can be used to defend more easily. So if you miss not only is your damage limited, but you're now often wide open.
From what I remember from my fights with axes, it was mostly with a shield. If I am moving out of the shields safety to strike, it will be very intentional. Hitting the body, shoulders, even legs up close didn't seem very difficult. Now moving arms, the primary target when using a sword, those I would try to avoid with an axe if possible, unless the person was standing still for a second.
This was with fairly long axes, something like 75cm.
I always wondered why axes were not the weapon of choice in close-range combat. Now I saw this video.
Good discussion Matt, looking forward to that Richard III analyses!
I never thought of it like that thank you for your thoughts and insight Mat keep up the videos love them brother
As aways, so interesting! Thank you Matt.
Sticks don't hurt as much as sharpened metal - got it. The educational value of this channel is nearly endless! 😉
He said that Filipino martial arts uses sticks to simulate bladed weapons. No, they will take the 2 sticks and use them as a primary weapon and beat the crap out of their enemy with them.
Gosh, 13 minutes talking about "Swords can cut with most of the blade, axe has small blade, so axe hit needs to be precisely with that small blade to deal real damage, yes it's more damage, but if you miss, it is almost no damage at all" thank you. 6 minute video would be more than enough to explain that...
@@cchavezjr7 We have many different weapons in our martial arts. Twin sticks is just one. Edged weapons are pretty common, but since we're poor, we typically use the same bamboo/rattan sticks for training for long knife/machete as we do for stick fighting. To an outsider looking in, it might look like we only train in stick fighting.
@@temperededge I'm well aware of what it all entails. I'm making a joke how he said that sticks are stand ins for bladed weapons when they are very much a weapon that's trained in and used.
It's worth noting that this doesn't even begin to get into the hit-or-miss nuances of THRUSTING with weapons, only cutting or otherwise striking. I sense a Part II in the making . . ..
May I contradict ? I guess it is much simpler : With an axe you can only hit, with a sword you can both, thrust and hit. And thrust beats hit, which necessiates to open the cover for a moment.
I'm also very much thinking of valaska/fokos here - they were very much civillian tools/weapons - you'd use it for "inciidental" woodwork, as a walking stick and to defend yourself. Funnily enough they go in exactly the opposite direction - quite long haft, small striking head, still they were quite popular in Greater Hungary
Thank you for another interesting discussion. Cheers!
Back in my SCA days I'd fight with a raper with an off hand axe. I found it good hooking and trapping.
Axe weakness is momentum. Axe strength is penetration. Axe is the hybrid of Blade and Club.
A longer axe or hammer has the advantage of having a lot of blocking and pushing power, can create range, and will have some concussive force even if you miss with the head - which is probably why it was a primary weapon. But a sword will almost always wound an unarmoured person. However, if you're facing armoured opponents, swords also have a disadvantage (that's of course why they developed thin thrusting blades to get into weak points) but there, the long poleaxe or even the single handed axe might have an advantage if you hit. But as you say, as a weapon on it's own, axes do come with a lot of difficulties and require training. Now, if you're a farmer accustomed to chopping wood or something like it, you may have an advantage because you're used to wielding the axe and estimating range. Anyway, great video, I enjoy your stuff!
Your videos are really eye opening. I was wondering if you would do a video on the weapons of the Crusaders? I would like to see how weapons and armor changed from the 1st to the 3rd Crusade. What kind of Weapons were carried by Bohemond and Richard The Lionheart?
Great video....this reminded me of the Prince Oberyn vs Mountain fight on the GoT show....for most of it oberyn was making sweeping and swinging motions with his spear and the mountain was keeping his distance from them...but he didn't need to as he would just be hit with a long stick while wearing a full plate armor.
The answer is at around 4:30.
While I was involved in combat, I can agree with Matt that targeting with that small area is difficult. However, I got to a stage that with my maces, hammers, and axes, I was targeting and hitting buckles on armour. It can be done, but as he says, it's difficult, and it takes a LOT of practice.
I think some comparison vs armor is needed, similarly to what has been done by Tob&co with the longbow.
Against maille they seem pretty good, like a mace that can heavily focus blunt force, with cutting power comparable to a sword ( more force needed to do so )
Great vid, thanks - very interesting. I think that I'd be more fearful of someone wielding that battle axe rather than a sword if i was in armour... possibly in error but eesh, that spike!
This equation changes completely when you factor in plate armour.
It does not matter how long your sword edge is _you're never going to cut through plate armour_ and so the longer cutting edge becomes irrelevant as you'd be more concerned about thrusting through gaps.
If both combatants were unarmored a sword would be the ideal weapon but when both sides are wearing heavy plate, in my opinion a polaxe or any axe/hammer variation would be preferable
Use the bow part the axe first thru combat until your opponent is in striking range. Jab,jab, then uppercut.
In Norway back in the day "Magnus Lagasbøters - Landslov" (Magnus Lagasbøters - Law of the land) from 1274, said that all landowners in Norway were required to own at minimum a spear, sword or axe aswell as a shield. A spear could ofcourse be used for hunting (But whatever you'd want to hunt in Norway except for bears wouldn't really be of any help by using a spear). An axe was rather prevalent off the time then, since you could use the axe in your daily life when not waging war, making it more prevalent. (Woodcutting axes rather than war-axes). We keep thinking of the vikings as warlike, but even if you go to war 3-4 times in a lifetime. That's still 4-5 years at war and 40-50 where you farm, fish and cut wood. Swinging a sledge at work, getting the head to hit is alot easier with something familiar than waving around a sword. Most warriors of the time weren't actually warriors...
I read somewhere that the Vikings considered the axe as equal to the sword. They must have been very confident in their axe skills/techniques.