sagy.vikingove.cz/two-handed-a... Yes more info about Dane Axes! This article is excellent and I recommend reading it. Note the thickness of the blades and the total weights.
I'm noticing a trend with melee weapons throughout history. They're mostly light, thin and quick to swing. Almost like they're made to be easy to use and kill PEOPLE with, instead of the usual gigantic props used in media... hmm. I wonder.
Spears in particular are way under-represented. They were the standard infantry weapon for most societies for thousands of years. Spears need love too.
Unlikely to happen in any big way. Movies/TV shows are made for entertainment, not for historical realism, no matter how they are marketed. Swords are cool, spears are weak, is the attitude most viewers have and the makers know it, the studio will produce what they think will be popular. Swords look 'cooler' and are more conductive to flashy duels and close ups of actors (without helmets of course, cause they block close ups) [shrug] It is what it is.
I'm really liking all these axe videos as of late. I think you have a good knowledge base to extrapolate on why dane axes are the way they are and access to examples of these epic axes. Keep up the good work, love seeing this varied work'
Matt, I have mentioned this before in some video. You need to first acknowledge, and tell the audience, that the axe was first and foremost a tool. It still is, and was even more so in the viking age for boat building and hewing timbers. The reason that you can`t find a thin type M axe is because people are making them in the style of a wood working tool, which needs to be robust. The axes made for combat would be near useless for wood because they are light and thin and would possibly be damaged striking a tree, not unlike a sword.
Matt, i know you have talked about Turkish weapons before, like the yatagan. But would be willing to do a video on the kilij?(once you get a hold of one) And perhaps do a video getting people understand the term "scimitar". Theres Tulwar's, Pulwar's, Kilij , and shamshir. Would all of these go under the term Scimitar??? where did that term come from? I'm also excited to see who can make you a Dane axe, the right way. Again great video! Matt.
Manning Imperial Australia, - Norwegian 2hnd Axe 3mm cutting edge, 100% carbon steel, - I have had this axe for 11 months and done countless hours of cutting with it. Light and very fast excellent cutter for cloth and leather targets like butter, have not tried cutting chain or plate for obvious reasons. I think it is the exactly the axe Mat is describing. Great quality!!!!
Hello Matt, I feel I need to say my point of view to this, as a weaponsmith (also for historical replicas). I am technically educated, have different experience in the field and I know how different materials react to corrosion. It is important to mention also other factors that I think might have been left out: - The first thing is that the axe is about 1000 years old (right?) and from the pictures, my experience, experience of other historical replicas manufacturers that I talked to, it is clear that the axes lost about 20% of their weight. During the 1000 years a piece of thin iron would lost a big part of its weight in air humidity and even more in the ground. - What is true for the weight is also true for the thickness - yes, rust makes iron thicker, but at the same time we have to say that as time goes the rust falls gradually off and axes lose great amount of their material (the holes through axe heads are the evidence) and get thinner. - I have been discussing this issue with other manufacturers and also with an archaeologist, who´s job is preserving historical findings for museums. He confirmed to me that when a rusted axe is found, the rust is chemically removed with an acid and then it is preserved. If the rusted layer was not removed, the axes could rust further in air humidity in museums and this is surely not hapenning. This is why the axes in museums dont contain rusted layers and are not thicker than they were in past. The archaeologist also confirmed that the axes are missing at least 20% of their original material. - With all these information it is obvious that original new axes had different thickness and weight than the findings in museums. The data of the findings can only help us estimate the original weight and thickness of the axes in past. This is why the requirements for the dane axe replicas should be a bit different if they are supposed to be historically correct. I hope my explanation will be understood in a positive way and will bring more light to the topic.
Hi Peter, I respectfully disagree on a number of these points. In my life I have examined and handled hundreds of medieval weapons, mostly swords, most found either in the ground or rivers. In fact as a former archaeologist I have excavated seax, francisca and shield bosses from Merovingian grave sites in Normandy myself. You cannot lose "20%" of mass from a sword or seax without the blade disappearing. Most swords are only around 1-2mm thick at the ends of their blades. If you lost 20% you would have no object left because they would fall apart in the ground or water (and yes, this is what did happen to most weapons left in the ground or water - they disappeared). When a steel weapon survives it is because of very specific soil conditions, or because there is not enough oxygen present to allow full corrosion of the object to take place. This is why some of the best preserved medieval weapons we have (eg. the Castillon swords) were found in the mud of river banks. With objects found in these conditions you get *some* corrosion of *some areas of the metal, which as seen in these examples from the Museum of London can result in specific parts of the weapon being eaten away by corrosion. This is why some of the axes have holes in one area, but not all the axes have that and why these holes are localised to specific parts of the axe and not just the whole axe head. Certainly *some* axes have lost *some* mass - particularly the ones with holes in the blade. However in most cases it is nowhere near 20%, more like 5%. In addition, you get a build up of corrosion material - this ADDS mass to the object. Weight is not ONLY being removed, it is also being added. And moreover, corrosion material can actually be heavier than the iron which has been lost. So overall, no we should not assume that all archaeological weapons would have been 20% heavier when new. That is ridiculous and no serious archaeologist argues that. Lastly, there are some weapon makers recreating this type of axe head and they are weighing 600-800g, just as the originals weigh. The heaviest know example, which has lost *very little* material, probably no loss of mass, is the British Museum example, which is especially large and bigger than the Museum of London examples, and that weighs 960g. That is a giant example and I repeat, there is no evidence is has lost any mass.
Thank you for your explaining. However, I am still looking at the axes from the point of materials, physics, corrosion and how it works in the course of time. If talking about weights and thickness of axes that should be samples for replicas - they have deep corrosion and often holes through heads - at the same time the weight you mention is without the rust and the rusted material, which was removed during preservation. To say that I cant lose material without losing an edge is also very incorrect. It of course is possible - the body of the axes was made of wrought iron full of material defects and the reinforced edge was made of high quality steel without defects. The least rusted areas of the axes are also missing at least a half milimeter of material. As an axe maker I must say it is no problem to make an axe of 400grams and with 30cm edge, but it would be useless not only in past times. Another thing are the axes with reinforced edge - if they were 2-3mm thick with strong reinforced edge, after few hits to the armor, the reinfordced edge would start to push and go deeper into the body of the axe and deform it (as if you were pushing an edge of a paper against the wall). I am almost sure no such findings we have in museums. I am very open to the discussion and willing to learn new facts if they comply with metallurgy. I will be happy to go on with the discussion tomorrow. Good night for today :)
I restored a old French axe that was kinda similar, nowhere near as thin and not a fighting axe but it had same shape, very light and with the long pick axe handle I put on it swings great
Hard to believe people needed clarification from your previous descriptions. I think the only new information presented here was specific measurements of blade edges and mass in grams...otherwise, just repeating what you said before. Something something education modern attention span.
Hi, Matt. The best viking age axes I know of are being made by Jim Austin at forgedaxes.com/ He makes dane axes with really thin blades and correctly shaped sockets. He made a really interesting thread over on Don Foggs forum where he showed lots of examples of his axes and how they are made. He makes dane axes both with and without reinforced edges. Its a long thread, but worth the read. www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?/topic/17953-viking-age-axe-tutorial/& - Corporal Carrot
How far off is the shepherd's axe or fokos, valaska, ciupaga from the Dane axe. By the way I started to watch a video from a guy saying it weighed or at least his weighed in between 8-9 lbs. That would put it in the weight of a Enfield SMLE if I remember correctly.
As an aside regarding the weight you were talking about Matt,the average khukuri is also between about 600g-800g.All the best.Good luck in your search mate...
Hey Matt I have a question Sadly we don't know for sure how these axes were used - we know a few thing like that they could be used for stapping with the horn and grapping with the beard and of course that they were used to kill people lol, but other than that we don't know how they were used. Would you maybe do a video on this? I myself have an idea, but im pretty unqualified so I'd like your opinion on it. In reenactment you often see how the dane axe is used in the back of the formation reaching over the shield wall and chopping people down and while this makes good sense in a formation I was thinking that since the dane axe was often used by housekarls who are essentially bodyguards sometimes it would have to be used outside of the normal battlefield and its formations and istead in a self defense like senario. My thought then was that maybe the dane axe was used a bit like the montante with big (but controlled) swings that could keep multiple people at bay at the same time and would scare people to enter it's range (again just like the montante). Now the montante was of course not used in a period where most people would use big round shields so that might be a problem to for theory but since most viking round shields were no more than 1cm thick in the middle and all the way down to 6mm at the edges (as Roland often points out in his videos) the shield probably wouldn't help that much against a big axe like the dane axe (even though the dane axe is light it still generates a lot of force by its sheer size and leverage). We also know that shields often broke because this is the reason that when people did holmgangr (duelling) each participant had the right to get 3 shields which tells us that they most have broken pretty often since there has to be a rule that states this. Anyways, this was just my thought on this, hope you will give me some feedback and your own opinion since I am very intrested in this specific topic (I'm a dane, so how can I not be lol) Cheers mate
oh, the article mentioned two methods of construction. There is a third that may be easier, the asymmetric wrap, where the eye is folded around but the weld line is well short of the cutting edge. That way, you don't have to forge a butterfly-looking preform and then wrap it, so there is less forging needed to spread the material. Plus, it is easier to wrap and weld than to drift for most smiths.
I have a replica and the blade thickness is about 5mm throughout and it feels heavy. Type M, with a thicker reinforced edge. It weighs probably a bit over a kilogram.
Also the shaft is quite thick, and is of a larger diameter than the ring having been cut down to make it fit. It was over six feet in height and I cut it down a little.
thank you very much for this. I hear through the grapevine that Owen Bush is having a gathering at his place soon. Go there, and you will be surrounded by people that understand how to balance these (and swords, and seaxes, and the differences among them). Great video. If you do not know Owen, do yourself a favor and go meet him. He is near to you (in my standard of distance, anyway). take care.
20 years ago it was a heck of a lot more expensive to get good replica medieval swords, and especially training swords. Even more rare for a decent price. Give it time. Once guys like Matt influence the smiths to create more accurate replicas, they will be obtainable off the shelf.
The Arms and Armor is the only repro that you can actually buy at this moment, the best I can tell. Austin says nothing in stock but you might be able to place an order. There's one he sold earlier whose owner posted a review and it's freaking sick. But apparently if you have to ask how much he paid you can't afford it. Skall has an A&A and reviewed it, nice but basic, and KoA says $360 and expect 4 month wait. So I say hats off to Matt for hopefully getting more smiths acquainted with one of my all time favorite weapons, and hopefully we'll see more of these available and eventually some price drop. Also I'd prefer to see the heads sold alone, as they were in viking times, the choice of shaft left to the fighter. This is roughly the same amount of material and labor as a shortsword if you consider only the steel bit.
At this point I feel like it'd be a lot better and cheaper for people wanting a one-handed viking-style axe to just get a Cold Steel trail hawk. It fits the dimensions perfectly and even looks very similar to some of the patterns shown at 1:35 . Particularly, one of the two X heads but it's not that different from the A and K types either.
I would suggest you look at Manning Imperial from Australia. A glance through his axe section and he has several large Dane axe styles that are in the 600-700 gram range. He lists options for carbon steel or mild steel with forge welded edges. He also lists that the width is 3mm, and the size seems about right for what you are looking for. www.manningimperial.com/catalogue/arms/axes/13
We do demnad videos about these new sexy swords on the wall (especially about that gorgeous back-sword(third from the top)). As soon as possible. Do you copy?
Interesting follow-ups to your first video. I'm sure you know Logan Thompson's 'Ancient Weapons in Britain' - some useful comparisons there. I have done a lot of forging and while the thickening behind the blade may be a result of adding a high carbon edge, that doesn't mean that that thickening was not deliberate - it may well have been. My only other observation is) and I think this is implicit anyway in your clear statement of what you require) that of course the material evidence will include a range not only in size and shape, but of what the housecarls themselves would have considered weapons of different QUALITY.
You mentioned some famous battles with Dane Axes... In Denmark we had one battle, where a king was killed by an Axe (we assume a Dane Axe) in the 11-12th century :)
How would an axe, opposed to a pollaxe, perform in a cutting test? Better or worse? EDIT: being equal the sharpness and quality of construction of the weapons
I honestly cannot wait to see what you finally end up with. I've always been mystified by this weapon. what exactly was it used for? It would certainly work well for dispatching horses (think meat cleaver... yuck...). But it has no hand protection, less reach than a spear, and more or less rules out the use of a shield. Would a specialist axeman be out of luck against opponents armed with less exotic weapons?
It seems likely that these could have been used in tandem with more traditionally armed shielded troops, who could provide protection for the axe users. However, although they were different in form and function than weapons such as halberds and pollaxes, we know that halberds and pollaxes could be used defensively to great effect. It isn't too crazy to think that well trained axe troops could fight and defend themselves with a good degree of proficiency even against opponents armed differently. As for their use, it's clear they were amazing cutters for fighting non-armored or less-armored opponents. Whether they were specifically for use against infantry or cavalry we don't know, but they are versatile weapons and were probably just used against whatever foes they needed to be. They are designed in a way that can hook and thrust as well as chop, so they were definitely used in a more nuanced combat capacity, but personally I have no doubts they could mess up a horse.
Reading from a find of a broad axe, I found this about a sword, and would love to hear what you, @Scholagladiatoria , have to say about the hilt. Why is it so short? Is the remark from the archeologists correct? "Swords with hilts that curve away from the grip are normally quite short in the viking era. The grip on Langeidsverdet is one of the shortest we know, only 6,5 cm. This short grip only accommodates three fingers and thus the little finger be held on the pommel to fit. Alternatively, the index finger and thumb can be placed on the forth most part of the hilt [it is V-shaped]. In spite of this impractical trend of a short grip, swords such as these were fully capable in battle when you were used to it." Was this really just a fashion like the archeologists imply or does it serve some function? www.khm.uio.no/forskning/samlingene/gjenstandskalender/2015/november/praktsverdet-fra-langeid.html
I must ask: have the museums accounted for the mass of the corrosion & how that's impacted the overall weight? Because rust is heavier than iron, it could easily add to that final total.
if i had the tools id give it a go and send it to you for free. doesnt seem like itd be very hard to do via stock removal once you have the correct measurements. with black smithing tools and some power tools seems like it could be done with a single piece of8mm thick steel. shape the outline of the blade, the the edge section to a flat 5 or 6 mm, then start removing back from the edge into the body till you get to 4 or 5mm, then start slowly letting it thicken back up towards the socket, then fold over and forge weld the socket shut. then bevel the edge then heattreat then sharpen. temper, then take a torch and soften up the core a bit extra that way. doing the socket that way might be annoying but that could be created out of a block of steel. time is the only issue i can see being constructing one that way.
there's a discrepancy I've noticed between a poleaxe like the Dane axe and other weapons which have round handles. We avoid round handles in swords for lots of reasons, but mostly edge alignment. Polearms don't. How do people who do cutting with these things make it work? There a trick to it, or is just practice?
do they? I've only ever seen round. I mean, it makes sense to not have round. Octagonal would be easier to make and offer better grip, but I've never seen it.
It seems like aside from weight, the length is smaller than I'd expected. I was thinking polearm sized, but it seems like they're closer to longswords. Just generally it seems like a smaller weapon, which seems to be the trend (I think I've heard it said that historical katanas are also often shorter than expected).
They are surprisingly short! However, there's evidence that much longer axes with a similar or almost identical blade design developed not much later, and longer polearms such as some bardiches are likely to be inspired by earlier "Dane" or great axes
I think there is no ground to the theory that the "bulged edge" is an artifact of the manufacturing, i.e. inserting a steel edge in an iron body. - Firstly: is it only proven that these axes actually have a steel edge inserted in an iron body? - Secondly: welding a steel edge used to be a commonplace way to make tools since at least the 18th century, be it spades, hoes, ploughs' coulters, all sorts of axes, billhooks and slashers, clogmakers stock knives, wood chisels, etc... basically anything with an edge. And only very few local types of axes had a relatively similar kind of reinforced edge (old fashioned single beveled hewing broadaxes, mostly in Scandinavia, without much of a surprise), meaning that almost everywhere, blacksmiths were able to forge the weld flat again if desired. - Thirdly: since the cutting edge is so long, this reinforcing ridge actually stiffens it. It might be a sign that they knew their metal was crappy and needed reinforcement. Cause not only is it not proven they have a steel insert edge, but neither it is that the edge, if steel, is quenched. If the edge is unhardened and not reinforced, left thin, there is a significant risk that if it gets stuck in something, but the inertia make it twist to the side, the portion of the edge "pinched" in the target might get bent. The reinforcing/stiffening ridge would help prevent it. - Fourthly, and maybe most interesting: the bulged edge could also be a sort of penetration limitator and retrieving-help feature to avoid the blade burying itself too deep, and especially if you think of such an axe striking the top of a shield at the rim, and getting stick into the wood of the shield. That ridge make sure there is a wedging effect so that even if it doesn't split the shield on the spot, there is only very few contact surface with the wood pressing on the sides of the blade, while a thin blade would offer a significant contact surface, and no clear contact point, and rocking the blade back and forth to retrieve it would be a pain and may not even work (that's why it strongly advised not to split logs with a chopping axe: it can get stuck and the shaft breaks before you can even retrieve the axe... I actually did that mistake).
Actually, a lot of these axes in fact do have inserted steel edges. There are even x-rays where you can see the difference in steel and the weld line quite clearly. Axes and all sort of tools have been made that way since the start of the iron age. Usually, you'd hammer and grind the weld flat so you won't see it. My latest theory - after pondering the construction for over a week while making one - is that it might be done to facilitate repairs. The blade is going to get chipped a lot in battle. So it will need to be replaced in a regular interval. Leaving the weld proud means that it is going to be easier to chisel the edge open and insert and reweld a new edge.
It's a statistical issue: what proportion of these "bulged edge" axes have a steel edge insert compared to axes which have a "flat" edge? If there is no statistically significant difference, this can't be a reason why. I have some old tools who have been re-edged, by just forge welding it on the flat. I don't see how it could be easier to first chisel the edge out, precisely removing the most desirable steel part, to insert a new edge, while you could just "recharge" it. Also, on what sources are you basing your assumption that these edges would chip a lot? There are chances that even though steel, it was still quite soft, maybe not even quenched, and then it would be quite unlikely to chip.
Why would the people skilled with the most advanced metallurgy techniques of their age (their swords were masterpieces) not harden the edges of their weapons? All their swords are hardened. Hardening an axe is childs play in comparison to hardening a sword, and every blacksmith capable of doing his work would by definition be easily able to do so. This is lesson 102 of blacksmithing - how to quench tools. This, and forge welding (because back then, ALL steel was forge welded from lumps of metal the blacksmith made himself in a bloomery) is the absolute base skill level. And you would not chisel the old edge out - you'd grind it flat to the part wher the blade swell is, and then chisel this part open and insert the new one - as you always loose some of the outer layers of the piece during a welding heat, you want as much material as possible before starting. Now, welding to the side is possible, but it creates a less stable weld than a center weld. Due to the asymmetry in the material strenght, the side-welded piece could bend towards the hard "insert"/"weldon" on impact. In addition, you have the weld line (which is always weaker or at most as strong as the weaker of the two materials, due to inclusions in the weld that mostly can't be avoided) This means that you are putting the stronges force as a shearing force to the ewakest part of the construction. - Worst case, the weld could snap. A center-set weld is easier to set, as the welding heat is contained inside the wedge, so you have extra time to set it, as the anvil and hammer contact siphoning heat off it is further away. Also, even if the weld does not take fully, the insert is supported on both sides and braced in line with the striking force. That's why axes have been made this way for the last 1000+ years.
It's not about whys and assumptions, the only question is really statistical: how much of these "bulged edge" axes have a steel edge insert VS. flat edged ones, and how many of these actually have a quenched edge. You'll notice that it's not because our civilization has landed rovers on Mars and sent satellites in space that we can casually say "oh, yes, we go to Mars and travel in space" like if it was the norm. What is the best technology available at a given period in a given place tells nothing of what the average is. And the success of a design is, by definition, something that has to do with what is popular and commonplace. So, the question is: what actual data do we have, how representative and comprehensive they are? Hypothesis based on assumptions on materials don't make for very good theories. I see what you mean about edge weld, and how a split weld is better than a side weld, but if we take in consideration the fact that it's on Dane axes, we can see edge chipping is certainly not the main issue: look at how narrow the eye is, and how few purchase it has on the shaft. The edge, on the other hand, is quite wide and far from the eye, it makes for a significant lever to apply force on that narrow eye, and could allow a rocking back and forth effect to mangle the shaft, making this part the weakest link of the design (and you'll notice that no working axe has such a narrow eye for such a wide blade). These axes probably had their head flying off quite often, due to this configuration. We can see a sort of fix/workaround with the copper alloy sleeve there is on one of these heads. So, among the "bulged edges" axes, among those which were hardened, how many would have edge chipping problems before the head mangling the shaft and flying off somewhere and get lost entirely? Also, the best way to avoid edge chipping (or any edge damage in fact) is simply to make the edge a bit thicker and more convex.
I tried breaking your wall of ignorance, but I do not seem to get through. _You_ are the one making assumptions. _You_ are the one who is making the extraordinary claim that a weapon that is made for the most expensive elite warriors of their time, people who need to prove their financial status by providing gold-inlaid swords for themselves, is completely made out of inferior steel, and most likely not even properly hardened... Pretty much every item of this age, from swords to spears, axes and hatchets, down to kitchen knives has been made using highly advanced metallurgical knowledge, and you claim that a blacksmith, after putting hours and hours of advanced techniques into forging such a blade, would leave out a simple 10 minute task at the end of the process, just in order to make an inferior product. So collect the data you claim you are looking for, and then come back if you can find any proof to your hypothesis that these axes are inferior products, and maybe even intentionally made that way. Then, we can talk some more about your theory. Until then, I will waste no more time on this, and go back to work on the longsword I'm currently forging. Have a nice day.
If the heaviest one found is 960g then what prevents us from assuming there were historical examples going above that? How do we know that 960g is an outlier on the edge of the bell curve, and not more common? Shouldn't your range be then 600g to 1000g instead of to 800g?
And nothing prevent us from assuming that the most common dane axes were 200g and had little rabbits engraved on the blade. It's always safer to assume things from what we actually found that what could have been, because then we have material evidence to back things up. If most findings ranged from 600 to 800g, then it's safe to assume that the 960g one is an exception (unless we find a grave full of 900g+ axe heads).
By that logic, why not assume that they went up to 4000g. :-) The fact is, we should work within the historical parameters we have. We can only work with the available data, otherwise it's just fantasy.
another example of expanding iron oxide is concrete rot. when the rebar in reinforced concrete rusts it can sometimes expand so much it cracks the concrete around it. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Qew_bruecke_nf_beton_kaputt_25_von_46.jpg/220px-Qew_bruecke_nf_beton_kaputt_25_von_46.jpg
Perhaps it's not just the Axs which are a bit too thick! People bothering to watch the videos without listening to the key differences between historical Daneaxs and their common replicas.
The weights given are based on estimation from the proportions, assuming the steel was in new condition. Yes corrosion replacing steel does change the mass, so directly weighing them would not give a totally accurate mass.
Fe goes to Fe2O3 with some variations in between. Oxygen weighs significantly less but a direct conversion would increase the weight by 44%. But rust does not stick together well so you lose pieces, and much of that rust is in an in between level of oxidation. So, essentially you have to take the shape of the item and then calculate what pure iron/steel would weigh.
Matt, why do smiths get this so wrong so often? Even the guys at Forged in Fire. Isn't the data out there? All that needs to be known is the gross outline and mass. Then if a smith replicates the piece, they must be noticing that the weight is so much higher, no?
Honestly I believe that if they linked to the same fundraiser at the same time, and gave enough evidence that they could all learn something perhaps (or something or another) that they indeed could probably raise the money in a week, and possibly less. ( Besides we finally get to see them get destroyed by the King of Context :P)
I would suggest some smiths but good chance you would already know them all seeing one of the smiths I know made your brigandine you showed off in one of your videos.
Just read the article you linked to, this example was pictured. I remembered watching this video of it being made some time ago.www.khm.uio.no/tema/fagomradene/konservering/langeid/video/langeid_oks_gjenfodes.mp4
Matt, are you like... sponsored by SuperDry or something? Do you work for them? Every video I see of you lately you're wearing shirts that say SuperDry.
www.khm.uio.no/forskning/samlingene/gjenstandskalender/2015/oktober/bredoksen-fra-langeid.html A bit down this side you can find a good figure with measurements showing the cross section very well. In the same article you can find a very interesting remark about their use among common people: "In the last part of the viking era changed when entering the age of the broad axe. This pure fighting axe could be large, but had a thin blade and was therefore very light. The broad axe gave the axe warrior a weapon good enough for a professional warrior. Such axe warriors were seen with fearsome respect, and could, according to rumor, cut the head off an ox with one blow." "I siste del av vikingtiden endret dette seg noe når bredøksens tidsalder tok til. Denne rendyrkede stridsøksen kunne være stor, men var også tynnsmidd i bladet og dermed relativt lett. Bredøksen gav øksekrigeren et drapsredskap verdig en profesjonell kriger. Slike øksekrigere ble sett på med fryktsom respekt, og kunne etter sigende kappe hodet av en okse med ett enkelt hugg."
20 cm= 7 7/8 in. 2 mm= 1/16 in. or 80 mil/thou 5 mm= 5/16 in. or 200 mil/thou 3 mm=1/8 in. or 100 mil/thou 4 mm= 3/16 in. or 160 mil/thou 600 g= 21.2 oz 800 g= 28.0 oz 28 cm= 11 in. 966 g= 34.1 oz. There's a variable number of sig figs in there. Also, "Point", heh.
People always get axe weight wrong. They think all axes are heavy because woodcutter's axes are heavy. But war axes like the Dane Axe aren't wood-chopping axes, they're people-chopping axes. It's different!
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Longsword" bullshit that's going on youtube right now. Dane Axes deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that. I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Dane Axe in Sweden for 160500 Krona (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my Dane Axe. Viking smiths spend years working on a single axe and hammer it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind. Dane Axes are thrice as sharp as longswords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a dane axe can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a dane axe could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash. Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Scandinavia? That's right, they were too scared to fight the ferocious Vikings and their Dane Axes of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with viking bloodline first because their killing power was feared and respected.
OK, can you stop this now. i'm trying to hold off playing Mount and Blade until Bannerlord is released but you keep waving my favorite weapon in my face and it's getting pretty hard to resist temptation! i may need counceling :(
Cold steel makes one that meets most of your criteria, 20 cm blade and 2 to 3 mm thick but I can't find an accurate head weight on it, called "Viking axe" (not "Viking hand axe" which is a different model).
Going by official movie replicas his first axe, the bearded one, has a 8 inches (20 cm) cutting head, so smaller than Matt's desired ax. The two headed one (that he supposedly gets in Balin's tomb) is 11 inches (28 cm). But they are 3/8'' thick, so about double of a danish axe, going by Matt's video, they are no worse than "historic reproduction" ones. Source for Gimli's axes dimensions: iloveswords.com/LOTR5.html
And yeah, Dane Axe is basically the European katana. Nothing that can't be cut by them. A whole cavalry formation? No problem, one swing.
I see you have your test cutting planned out already.
Are you sponsored by Superdry? If not, you're missing a trick...
I heard that a Dane Axe can cut through tanks... Makes you wonder why they weren't used later in history.
I wonder if the heavier dane axe head in the museum was more ceremonial.
Do a video cutting a katana with your Dane Axe.
I'm noticing a trend with melee weapons throughout history. They're mostly light, thin and quick to swing. Almost like they're made to be easy to use and kill PEOPLE with, instead of the usual gigantic props used in media... hmm. I wonder.
Anyone else think axes and Spears should be more common in medieval movies than swords?
add single edge European swords sadly lacking and way more common than depicted in media.
Unless it's late medieval, then yeah, I think I agree.
I was a little too excited like a season ago when they gave a falchion to Tormund on Game of Thrones. "Whoa! Is that a falchion? COOOOL!"
Spears in particular are way under-represented. They were the standard infantry weapon for most societies for thousands of years. Spears need love too.
Unlikely to happen in any big way. Movies/TV shows are made for entertainment, not for historical realism, no matter how they are marketed. Swords are cool, spears are weak, is the attitude most viewers have and the makers know it, the studio will produce what they think will be popular. Swords look 'cooler' and are more conductive to flashy duels and close ups of actors (without helmets of course, cause they block close ups) [shrug] It is what it is.
I'm really liking all these axe videos as of late. I think you have a good knowledge base to extrapolate on why dane axes are the way they are and access to examples of these epic axes. Keep up the good work, love seeing this varied work'
Thank you for continuing shedding light on misconceptions
Matt, I have mentioned this before in some video. You need to first acknowledge, and tell the audience, that the axe was first and foremost a tool. It still is, and was even more so in the viking age for boat building and hewing timbers. The reason that you can`t find a thin type M axe is because people are making them in the style of a wood working tool, which needs to be robust. The axes made for combat would be near useless for wood because they are light and thin and would possibly be damaged striking a tree, not unlike a sword.
Matt, i know you have talked about Turkish weapons before, like the yatagan. But would be willing to do a video on the kilij?(once you get a hold of one) And perhaps do a video getting people understand the term "scimitar". Theres Tulwar's, Pulwar's, Kilij , and shamshir. Would all of these go under the term Scimitar??? where did that term come from?
I'm also excited to see who can make you a Dane axe, the right way.
Again great video! Matt.
I think you made clear what you wanted the first time, I do like the additional information.
Manning Imperial Australia, - Norwegian 2hnd Axe 3mm cutting edge, 100% carbon steel, - I have had this axe for 11 months and done countless hours of cutting with it. Light and very fast excellent cutter for cloth and leather targets like butter, have not tried cutting chain or plate for obvious reasons. I think it is the exactly the axe Mat is describing. Great quality!!!!
Very good article Matt.
Finish your drink every time Matt says, "The point is . . ."
I swear on drunk, I am not god. I am only half way *hick*
Take a double when "point" is emphasized.
Very cool article... thanks matt!
Hello Matt, I feel I need to say my point of view to this, as a weaponsmith (also for historical replicas). I am technically educated, have different experience in the field and I know how different materials react to corrosion. It is important to mention also other factors that I think might have been left out:
- The first thing is that the axe is about 1000 years old (right?) and from the pictures, my experience, experience of other historical replicas manufacturers that I talked to, it is clear that the axes lost about 20% of their weight. During the 1000 years a piece of thin iron would lost a big part of its weight in air humidity and even more in the ground.
- What is true for the weight is also true for the thickness - yes, rust makes iron thicker, but at the same time we have to say that as time goes the rust falls gradually off and axes lose great amount of their material (the holes through axe heads are the evidence) and get thinner.
- I have been discussing this issue with other manufacturers and also with an archaeologist, who´s job is preserving historical findings for museums. He confirmed to me that when a rusted axe is found, the rust is chemically removed with an acid and then it is preserved. If the rusted layer was not removed, the axes could rust further in air humidity in museums and this is surely not hapenning. This is why the axes in museums dont contain rusted layers and are not thicker than they were in past. The archaeologist also confirmed that the axes are missing at least 20% of their original material.
- With all these information it is obvious that original new axes had different thickness and weight than the findings in museums. The data of the findings can only help us estimate the original weight and thickness of the axes in past. This is why the requirements for the dane axe replicas should be a bit different if they are supposed to be historically correct.
I hope my explanation will be understood in a positive way and will bring more light to the topic.
Hi Peter,
I respectfully disagree on a number of these points. In my life I have examined and handled hundreds of medieval weapons, mostly swords, most found either in the ground or rivers. In fact as a former archaeologist I have excavated seax, francisca and shield bosses from Merovingian grave sites in Normandy myself. You cannot lose "20%" of mass from a sword or seax without the blade disappearing. Most swords are only around 1-2mm thick at the ends of their blades. If you lost 20% you would have no object left because they would fall apart in the ground or water (and yes, this is what did happen to most weapons left in the ground or water - they disappeared). When a steel weapon survives it is because of very specific soil conditions, or because there is not enough oxygen present to allow full corrosion of the object to take place. This is why some of the best preserved medieval weapons we have (eg. the Castillon swords) were found in the mud of river banks. With objects found in these conditions you get *some* corrosion of *some areas of the metal, which as seen in these examples from the Museum of London can result in specific parts of the weapon being eaten away by corrosion. This is why some of the axes have holes in one area, but not all the axes have that and why these holes are localised to specific parts of the axe and not just the whole axe head. Certainly *some* axes have lost *some* mass - particularly the ones with holes in the blade. However in most cases it is nowhere near 20%, more like 5%. In addition, you get a build up of corrosion material - this ADDS mass to the object. Weight is not ONLY being removed, it is also being added. And moreover, corrosion material can actually be heavier than the iron which has been lost. So overall, no we should not assume that all archaeological weapons would have been 20% heavier when new. That is ridiculous and no serious archaeologist argues that. Lastly, there are some weapon makers recreating this type of axe head and they are weighing 600-800g, just as the originals weigh. The heaviest know example, which has lost *very little* material, probably no loss of mass, is the British Museum example, which is especially large and bigger than the Museum of London examples, and that weighs 960g. That is a giant example and I repeat, there is no evidence is has lost any mass.
Thank you for your explaining. However, I am still looking at the axes from the point of materials, physics, corrosion and how it works in the course of time. If talking about weights and thickness of axes that should be samples for replicas - they have deep corrosion and often holes through heads - at the same time the weight you mention is without the rust and the rusted material, which was removed during preservation. To say that I cant lose material without losing an edge is also very incorrect. It of course is possible - the body of the axes was made of wrought iron full of material defects and the reinforced edge was made of high quality steel without defects. The least rusted areas of the axes are also missing at least a half milimeter of material. As an axe maker I must say it is no problem to make an axe of 400grams and with 30cm edge, but it would be useless not only in past times. Another thing are the axes with reinforced edge - if they were 2-3mm thick with strong reinforced edge, after few hits to the armor, the reinfordced edge would start to push and go deeper into the body of the axe and deform it (as if you were pushing an edge of a paper against the wall). I am almost sure no such findings we have in museums. I am very open to the discussion and willing to learn new facts if they comply with metallurgy. I will be happy to go on with the discussion tomorrow. Good night for today :)
I restored a old French axe that was kinda similar, nowhere near as thin and not a fighting axe but it had same shape, very light and with the long pick axe handle I put on it swings great
Another great video!
jam1148 Quiet Mosi.
Hard to believe people needed clarification from your previous descriptions. I think the only new information presented here was specific measurements of blade edges and mass in grams...otherwise, just repeating what you said before. Something something education modern attention span.
Some people might be new to the channel, or might not have seen the previous video.
- And you little Matt, what would you like for Christmas?
- A dane axe, Miss!
The Peterson type L head, is the daddy..Fantastic video, I can't wait to see how this pans out
Gransfors Bruks has a line of ancient axes. Their "Battle Axe" appears most similar, including haft, 1.2 kg. The head has a fairly thin cheek.
Hi, Matt. The best viking age axes I know of are being made by Jim Austin at forgedaxes.com/ He makes dane axes with really thin blades and correctly shaped sockets. He made a really interesting thread over on Don Foggs forum where he showed lots of examples of his axes and how they are made. He makes dane axes both with and without reinforced edges. Its a long thread, but worth the read. www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?/topic/17953-viking-age-axe-tutorial/&
- Corporal Carrot
Thanks buddy, yes James Austin's axes look amazing.
Hey Matt! Great video. Have you seen the tv show vikings? I haven't seen any of your TV fight reviews with this show.i think you might enjoy!!!
How far off is the shepherd's axe or fokos, valaska, ciupaga from the Dane axe. By the way I started to watch a video from a guy saying it weighed or at least his weighed in between 8-9 lbs. That would put it in the weight of a Enfield SMLE if I remember correctly.
600 grams = 1.32 pounds
800 grams = 1.76 pounds
Ullanor Von Krieger good man
As an aside regarding the weight you were talking about Matt,the average khukuri is also between about 600g-800g.All the best.Good luck in your search mate...
Hey Matt I have a question
Sadly we don't know for sure how these axes were used - we know a few thing like that they could be used for stapping with the horn and grapping with the beard and of course that they were used to kill people lol, but other than that we don't know how they were used. Would you maybe do a video on this? I myself have an idea, but im pretty unqualified so I'd like your opinion on it.
In reenactment you often see how the dane axe is used in the back of the formation reaching over the shield wall and chopping people down and while this makes good sense in a formation I was thinking that since the dane axe was often used by housekarls who are essentially bodyguards sometimes it would have to be used outside of the normal battlefield and its formations and istead in a self defense like senario. My thought then was that maybe the dane axe was used a bit like the montante with big (but controlled) swings that could keep multiple people at bay at the same time and would scare people to enter it's range (again just like the montante). Now the montante was of course not used in a period where most people would use big round shields so that might be a problem to for theory but since most viking round shields were no more than 1cm thick in the middle and all the way down to 6mm at the edges (as Roland often points out in his videos) the shield probably wouldn't help that much against a big axe like the dane axe (even though the dane axe is light it still generates a lot of force by its sheer size and leverage). We also know that shields often broke because this is the reason that when people did holmgangr (duelling) each participant had the right to get 3 shields which tells us that they most have broken pretty often since there has to be a rule that states this. Anyways, this was just my thought on this, hope you will give me some feedback and your own opinion since I am very intrested in this specific topic (I'm a dane, so how can I not be lol)
Cheers mate
Did you consider buying from an axe company with a historical line of products, such as Gransfors?
oh, the article mentioned two methods of construction. There is a third that may be easier, the asymmetric wrap, where the eye is folded around but the weld line is well short of the cutting edge. That way, you don't have to forge a butterfly-looking preform and then wrap it, so there is less forging needed to spread the material. Plus, it is easier to wrap and weld than to drift for most smiths.
Yes I wondered about that option because I have seen some wood chopping axes made like that.
oh Matt, one editing tip. If you do scrolling text (like you do at 7:18) *always* make it move from right to left. this makes it way easier to read.
I have a replica and the blade thickness is about 5mm throughout and it feels heavy. Type M, with a thicker reinforced edge. It weighs probably a bit over a kilogram.
rotwang2000 according to my crude calculations 1 kg is about right for a proper broad axe as described by Matt (metal head only)
+rotwang2000 - Nothing an angry angle grinder couldn't fix...
Yeah, 5mm is too thick and over 1000g is too heavy. This is common with many reproductions.
Also the shaft is quite thick, and is of a larger diameter than the ring having been cut down to make it fit. It was over six feet in height and I cut it down a little.
Pause at 0:06 - is that Wallace or Grommit?
HebaruSan a bit both
Great, I want a Dane Axe now. Guess it's up to the forge tomorrow :P
thank you very much for this. I hear through the grapevine that Owen Bush is having a gathering at his place soon. Go there, and you will be surrounded by people that understand how to balance these (and swords, and seaxes, and the differences among them). Great video. If you do not know Owen, do yourself a favor and go meet him. He is near to you (in my standard of distance, anyway).
take care.
You've destroyed my dream of ever owning a Dane Axe now that I know they're all too heavy...
+Steven Hansen - Removing excess metal is relatively easy.
There are some people making them to the correct stats - for example James Austin and Arms & Armor Inc
20 years ago it was a heck of a lot more expensive to get good replica medieval swords, and especially training swords. Even more rare for a decent price.
Give it time. Once guys like Matt influence the smiths to create more accurate replicas, they will be obtainable off the shelf.
The Arms and Armor is the only repro that you can actually buy at this moment, the best I can tell. Austin says nothing in stock but you might be able to place an order. There's one he sold earlier whose owner posted a review and it's freaking sick. But apparently if you have to ask how much he paid you can't afford it. Skall has an A&A and reviewed it, nice but basic, and KoA says $360 and expect 4 month wait. So I say hats off to Matt for hopefully getting more smiths acquainted with one of my all time favorite weapons, and hopefully we'll see more of these available and eventually some price drop. Also I'd prefer to see the heads sold alone, as they were in viking times, the choice of shaft left to the fighter. This is roughly the same amount of material and labor as a shortsword if you consider only the steel bit.
With enough flappy discs and an angle grinder, anything is possible if you're careful not to overheat wink wink
At this point I feel like it'd be a lot better and cheaper for people wanting a one-handed viking-style axe to just get a Cold Steel trail hawk. It fits the dimensions perfectly and even looks very similar to some of the patterns shown at 1:35 . Particularly, one of the two X heads but it's not that different from the A and K types either.
Yay, more axeeeeees!
I would suggest you look at Manning Imperial from Australia. A glance through his axe section and he has several large Dane axe styles that are in the 600-700 gram range. He lists options for carbon steel or mild steel with forge welded edges. He also lists that the width is 3mm, and the size seems about right for what you are looking for.
www.manningimperial.com/catalogue/arms/axes/13
We do demnad videos about these new sexy swords on the wall (especially about that gorgeous back-sword(third from the top)). As soon as possible. Do you copy?
Completely unrelated question; what is the sabre on the wall above the kris, please?
Interesting follow-ups to your first video. I'm sure you know Logan Thompson's 'Ancient Weapons in Britain' - some useful comparisons there. I have done a lot of forging and while the thickening behind the blade may be a result of adding a high carbon edge, that doesn't mean that that thickening was not deliberate - it may well have been. My only other observation is) and I think this is implicit anyway in your clear statement of what you require) that of course the material evidence will include a range not only in size and shape, but of what the housecarls themselves would have considered weapons of different QUALITY.
Surely you know of Duncan Bush? His Dane axes are the real deal... historically accurate and real works of art.
You mentioned some famous battles with Dane Axes... In Denmark we had one battle, where a king was killed by an Axe (we assume a Dane Axe) in the 11-12th century :)
Our pollies are pretty thick ,does that make them replica dane axes?
Owen Bush the blacksmith makes a credible incarnation of the Dane axe, top of the list for anyones bug out bag I say.
The axe head might be light. But the centrifugal force from being wielded with a long handle makes more than up for it i reckond.
How would an axe, opposed to a pollaxe, perform in a cutting test? Better or worse?
EDIT: being equal the sharpness and quality of construction of the weapons
I honestly cannot wait to see what you finally end up with. I've always been mystified by this weapon. what exactly was it used for? It would certainly work well for dispatching horses (think meat cleaver... yuck...). But it has no hand protection, less reach than a spear, and more or less rules out the use of a shield. Would a specialist axeman be out of luck against opponents armed with less exotic weapons?
It seems likely that these could have been used in tandem with more traditionally armed shielded troops, who could provide protection for the axe users. However, although they were different in form and function than weapons such as halberds and pollaxes, we know that halberds and pollaxes could be used defensively to great effect. It isn't too crazy to think that well trained axe troops could fight and defend themselves with a good degree of proficiency even against opponents armed differently. As for their use, it's clear they were amazing cutters for fighting non-armored or less-armored opponents. Whether they were specifically for use against infantry or cavalry we don't know, but they are versatile weapons and were probably just used against whatever foes they needed to be. They are designed in a way that can hook and thrust as well as chop, so they were definitely used in a more nuanced combat capacity, but personally I have no doubts they could mess up a horse.
Matt, one question, don't you think they're weighty than the original examples that were under corrosion? they have lost mass for sure
Reading from a find of a broad axe, I found this about a sword, and would love to hear what you, @Scholagladiatoria , have to say about the hilt. Why is it so short? Is the remark from the archeologists correct?
"Swords with hilts that curve away from the grip are normally quite short in the viking era. The grip on Langeidsverdet is one of the shortest we know, only 6,5 cm. This short grip only accommodates three fingers and thus the little finger be held on the pommel to fit. Alternatively, the index finger and thumb can be placed on the forth most part of the hilt [it is V-shaped]. In spite of this impractical trend of a short grip, swords such as these were fully capable in battle when you were used to it."
Was this really just a fashion like the archeologists imply or does it serve some function?
www.khm.uio.no/forskning/samlingene/gjenstandskalender/2015/november/praktsverdet-fra-langeid.html
I must ask: have the museums accounted for the mass of the corrosion & how that's impacted the overall weight? Because rust is heavier than iron, it could easily add to that final total.
Please listen to the video and read the other comments :-)
your 1796 lt cav sabre is not as curved as mine. although it's a lot longer.
It's been a couple of weeks ... anything new to report ?
Hi did you find a blacksmith that made what you were looking for in a historical Dane Axe??? Any update?
There are a few smiths going to have a go, yes :-)
Exciting!
if i had the tools id give it a go and send it to you for free.
doesnt seem like itd be very hard to do via stock removal once you have the correct measurements. with black smithing tools and some power tools seems like it could be done with a single piece of8mm thick steel. shape the outline of the blade, the the edge section to a flat 5 or 6 mm, then start removing back from the edge into the body till you get to 4 or 5mm, then start slowly letting it thicken back up towards the socket, then fold over and forge weld the socket shut. then bevel the edge then heattreat then sharpen.
temper, then take a torch and soften up the core a bit extra that way.
doing the socket that way might be annoying but that could be created out of a block of steel.
time is the only issue i can see being constructing one that way.
there's a discrepancy I've noticed between a poleaxe like the Dane axe and other weapons which have round handles. We avoid round handles in swords for lots of reasons, but mostly edge alignment. Polearms don't. How do people who do cutting with these things make it work? There a trick to it, or is just practice?
But these types of pole arms usually have oval or octagonal handles, though...
do they? I've only ever seen round. I mean, it makes sense to not have round. Octagonal would be easier to make and offer better grip, but I've never seen it.
Nothing like drinking mead while listening to matt talk about "DANE AXES".
How nimble was a Dane Axe of proper weight compared to a bastard sword?
It seems like aside from weight, the length is smaller than I'd expected. I was thinking polearm sized, but it seems like they're closer to longswords. Just generally it seems like a smaller weapon, which seems to be the trend (I think I've heard it said that historical katanas are also often shorter than expected).
They are surprisingly short! However, there's evidence that much longer axes with a similar or almost identical blade design developed not much later, and longer polearms such as some bardiches are likely to be inspired by earlier "Dane" or great axes
How the weight changes between a clean blade and completely rusted away museal piece ? Does it change to a noticable degree ?
Mozoto ironoxid is heavier because the gas is bound in the iron but its not so much like 100g iron could bind maybe 15g oxygen
maybe test it by yourself and light some steelwhoole get the weight before and after then u got your answer as precise as u can get in such case
I think there is no ground to the theory that the "bulged edge" is an artifact of the manufacturing, i.e. inserting a steel edge in an iron body.
- Firstly: is it only proven that these axes actually have a steel edge inserted in an iron body?
- Secondly: welding a steel edge used to be a commonplace way to make tools since at least the 18th century, be it spades, hoes, ploughs' coulters, all sorts of axes, billhooks and slashers, clogmakers stock knives, wood chisels, etc... basically anything with an edge. And only very few local types of axes had a relatively similar kind of reinforced edge (old fashioned single beveled hewing broadaxes, mostly in Scandinavia, without much of a surprise), meaning that almost everywhere, blacksmiths were able to forge the weld flat again if desired.
- Thirdly: since the cutting edge is so long, this reinforcing ridge actually stiffens it. It might be a sign that they knew their metal was crappy and needed reinforcement. Cause not only is it not proven they have a steel insert edge, but neither it is that the edge, if steel, is quenched. If the edge is unhardened and not reinforced, left thin, there is a significant risk that if it gets stuck in something, but the inertia make it twist to the side, the portion of the edge "pinched" in the target might get bent. The reinforcing/stiffening ridge would help prevent it.
- Fourthly, and maybe most interesting: the bulged edge could also be a sort of penetration limitator and retrieving-help feature to avoid the blade burying itself too deep, and especially if you think of such an axe striking the top of a shield at the rim, and getting stick into the wood of the shield. That ridge make sure there is a wedging effect so that even if it doesn't split the shield on the spot, there is only very few contact surface with the wood pressing on the sides of the blade, while a thin blade would offer a significant contact surface, and no clear contact point, and rocking the blade back and forth to retrieve it would be a pain and may not even work (that's why it strongly advised not to split logs with a chopping axe: it can get stuck and the shaft breaks before you can even retrieve the axe... I actually did that mistake).
Actually, a lot of these axes in fact do have inserted steel edges. There are even x-rays where you can see the difference in steel and the weld line quite clearly.
Axes and all sort of tools have been made that way since the start of the iron age. Usually, you'd hammer and grind the weld flat so you won't see it.
My latest theory - after pondering the construction for over a week while making one - is that it might be done to facilitate repairs. The blade is going to get chipped a lot in battle. So it will need to be replaced in a regular interval. Leaving the weld proud means that it is going to be easier to chisel the edge open and insert and reweld a new edge.
It's a statistical issue: what proportion of these "bulged edge" axes have a steel edge insert compared to axes which have a "flat" edge? If there is no statistically significant difference, this can't be a reason why.
I have some old tools who have been re-edged, by just forge welding it on the flat. I don't see how it could be easier to first chisel the edge out, precisely removing the most desirable steel part, to insert a new edge, while you could just "recharge" it. Also, on what sources are you basing your assumption that these edges would chip a lot? There are chances that even though steel, it was still quite soft, maybe not even quenched, and then it would be quite unlikely to chip.
Why would the people skilled with the most advanced metallurgy techniques of their age (their swords were masterpieces) not harden the edges of their weapons? All their swords are hardened. Hardening an axe is childs play in comparison to hardening a sword, and every blacksmith capable of doing his work would by definition be easily able to do so. This is lesson 102 of blacksmithing - how to quench tools. This, and forge welding (because back then, ALL steel was forge welded from lumps of metal the blacksmith made himself in a bloomery) is the absolute base skill level.
And you would not chisel the old edge out - you'd grind it flat to the part wher the blade swell is, and then chisel this part open and insert the new one - as you always loose some of the outer layers of the piece during a welding heat, you want as much material as possible before starting.
Now, welding to the side is possible, but it creates a less stable weld than a center weld. Due to the asymmetry in the material strenght, the side-welded piece could bend towards the hard "insert"/"weldon" on impact. In addition, you have the weld line (which is always weaker or at most as strong as the weaker of the two materials, due to inclusions in the weld that mostly can't be avoided) This means that you are putting the stronges force as a shearing force to the ewakest part of the construction. - Worst case, the weld could snap.
A center-set weld is easier to set, as the welding heat is contained inside the wedge, so you have extra time to set it, as the anvil and hammer contact siphoning heat off it is further away. Also, even if the weld does not take fully, the insert is supported on both sides and braced in line with the striking force. That's why axes have been made this way for the last 1000+ years.
It's not about whys and assumptions, the only question is really statistical: how much of these "bulged edge" axes have a steel edge insert VS. flat edged ones, and how many of these actually have a quenched edge. You'll notice that it's not because our civilization has landed rovers on Mars and sent satellites in space that we can casually say "oh, yes, we go to Mars and travel in space" like if it was the norm. What is the best technology available at a given period in a given place tells nothing of what the average is. And the success of a design is, by definition, something that has to do with what is popular and commonplace. So, the question is: what actual data do we have, how representative and comprehensive they are? Hypothesis based on assumptions on materials don't make for very good theories.
I see what you mean about edge weld, and how a split weld is better than a side weld, but if we take in consideration the fact that it's on Dane axes, we can see edge chipping is certainly not the main issue: look at how narrow the eye is, and how few purchase it has on the shaft. The edge, on the other hand, is quite wide and far from the eye, it makes for a significant lever to apply force on that narrow eye, and could allow a rocking back and forth effect to mangle the shaft, making this part the weakest link of the design (and you'll notice that no working axe has such a narrow eye for such a wide blade). These axes probably had their head flying off quite often, due to this configuration. We can see a sort of fix/workaround with the copper alloy sleeve there is on one of these heads. So, among the "bulged edges" axes, among those which were hardened, how many would have edge chipping problems before the head mangling the shaft and flying off somewhere and get lost entirely? Also, the best way to avoid edge chipping (or any edge damage in fact) is simply to make the edge a bit thicker and more convex.
I tried breaking your wall of ignorance, but I do not seem to get through. _You_ are the one making assumptions. _You_ are the one who is making the extraordinary claim that a weapon that is made for the most expensive elite warriors of their time, people who need to prove their financial status by providing gold-inlaid swords for themselves, is completely made out of inferior steel, and most likely not even properly hardened... Pretty much every item of this age, from swords to spears, axes and hatchets, down to kitchen knives has been made using highly advanced metallurgical knowledge, and you claim that a blacksmith, after putting hours and hours of advanced techniques into forging such a blade, would leave out a simple 10 minute task at the end of the process, just in order to make an inferior product.
So collect the data you claim you are looking for, and then come back if you can find any proof to your hypothesis that these axes are inferior products, and maybe even intentionally made that way. Then, we can talk some more about your theory. Until then, I will waste no more time on this, and go back to work on the longsword I'm currently forging.
Have a nice day.
but then again if you can gime me detailed drawing of what you want i can take a shot at it
If the heaviest one found is 960g then what prevents us from assuming there were historical examples going above that? How do we know that 960g is an outlier on the edge of the bell curve, and not more common? Shouldn't your range be then 600g to 1000g instead of to 800g?
And nothing prevent us from assuming that the most common dane axes were 200g and had little rabbits engraved on the blade. It's always safer to assume things from what we actually found that what could have been, because then we have material evidence to back things up. If most findings ranged from 600 to 800g, then it's safe to assume that the 960g one is an exception (unless we find a grave full of 900g+ axe heads).
I agree with you. The one graph missing from the video is that distribution of all specimen found.
By that logic, why not assume that they went up to 4000g. :-)
The fact is, we should work within the historical parameters we have. We can only work with the available data, otherwise it's just fantasy.
How about the Cold Steel Viking Axe
another example of expanding iron oxide is concrete rot. when the rebar in reinforced concrete rusts it can sometimes expand so much it cracks the concrete around it.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Qew_bruecke_nf_beton_kaputt_25_von_46.jpg/220px-Qew_bruecke_nf_beton_kaputt_25_von_46.jpg
The SCA Daneaxe simulator in my Mass Weapons video weighs 2.6lbs, quick, and hits like a freight train.
Aspie Sean subbed
+scholagladiatoria. Thanks for the link Matt, that's what I was looking for.
Perhaps it's not just the Axs which are a bit too thick!
People bothering to watch the videos without listening to the key differences between historical Daneaxs and their common replicas.
Does the corrosion change the weight of the axehead? Great vid btw
The weights given are based on estimation from the proportions, assuming the steel was in new condition. Yes corrosion replacing steel does change the mass, so directly weighing them would not give a totally accurate mass.
Fe goes to Fe2O3 with some variations in between. Oxygen weighs significantly less but a direct conversion would increase the weight by 44%. But rust does not stick together well so you lose pieces, and much of that rust is in an in between level of oxidation. So, essentially you have to take the shape of the item and then calculate what pure iron/steel would weigh.
john brown Yes, it'll make it slightly heavier than the unoxidised metal. But some of the original metal could of course be missing.
Matt, why do smiths get this so wrong so often? Even the guys at Forged in Fire.
Isn't the data out there? All that needs to be known is the gross outline and mass. Then if a smith replicates the piece, they must be noticing that the weight is so much higher, no?
you should do a special where you, Lloyd, shad, skal etc have a battle royal. you could crowd fund your plane tickets and a venue in a week.
Honestly I believe that if they linked to the same fundraiser at the same time, and gave enough evidence that they could all learn something perhaps (or something or another) that they indeed could probably raise the money in a week, and possibly less. ( Besides we finally get to see them get destroyed by the King of Context :P)
that'd be gay
I would suggest some smiths but good chance you would already know them all seeing one of the smiths I know made your brigandine you showed off in one of your videos.
Please don't scroll text over. It's follow, especially at the speed it's going at. Slow it down, or do a slow fade in and out?
Just read the article you linked to, this example was pictured. I remembered watching this video of it being made some time ago.www.khm.uio.no/tema/fagomradene/konservering/langeid/video/langeid_oks_gjenfodes.mp4
HEY MATT
You should talk about double headed battle axes and how they were never actually used in battle
There are in fact a few examples. Mostly Middle Eastern and Indian. I think Matt may have actually done a video on them before.
He did, several years back. czcams.com/video/WDwsDn6M-pU/video.html
I've got to say it.
It's really ironic that for a guy who makes videos about pointy things you take a hell of a long time to get to the point.
I watch all of Matt's videos at 2x speed. I can still tell what he's saying, and it takes half the time.
That's a good idea. I tend to skip the first 3 minutes but I'll try the 2x speed thing too.
I prefer x0. 5 speed makes things so much easier to understand
Matt, are you like... sponsored by SuperDry or something? Do you work for them? Every video I see of you lately you're wearing shirts that say SuperDry.
Matt, please auction and have the profits go to the channel!
www.khm.uio.no/forskning/samlingene/gjenstandskalender/2015/oktober/bredoksen-fra-langeid.html
A bit down this side you can find a good figure with measurements showing the cross section very well.
In the same article you can find a very interesting remark about their use among common people: "In the last part of the viking era changed when entering the age of the broad axe. This pure fighting axe could be large, but had a thin blade and was therefore very light. The broad axe gave the axe warrior a weapon good enough for a professional warrior. Such axe warriors were seen with fearsome respect, and could, according to rumor, cut the head off an ox with one blow."
"I siste del av vikingtiden endret dette seg noe når bredøksens tidsalder tok til. Denne rendyrkede stridsøksen kunne være stor, men var også tynnsmidd i bladet og dermed relativt lett. Bredøksen gav øksekrigeren et drapsredskap verdig en profesjonell kriger. Slike øksekrigere ble sett på med fryktsom respekt, og kunne etter sigende kappe hodet av en okse med ett enkelt hugg."
Contact Ric Furrer. He has made historically accurate weapons for documentaries in the past.
Erik McHugh perhaps? Patrick over at myarmoury had a nice one made by him...
sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/45867/axe-eric-mchugh
Yes I looked at Eric's and they look great.
How many times has he said brief before going on for what can't be considered brief?!
20 cm= 7 7/8 in.
2 mm= 1/16 in. or 80 mil/thou
5 mm= 5/16 in. or 200 mil/thou
3 mm=1/8 in. or 100 mil/thou
4 mm= 3/16 in. or 160 mil/thou
600 g= 21.2 oz
800 g= 28.0 oz
28 cm= 11 in.
966 g= 34.1 oz.
There's a variable number of sig figs in there.
Also, "Point", heh.
Axedemic matt.
TL;DW
It's only waffer thin.
People always get axe weight wrong. They think all axes are heavy because woodcutter's axes are heavy. But war axes like the Dane Axe aren't wood-chopping axes, they're people-chopping axes. It's different!
The search continues.
Not a smith, wish I was, I feel like I got the point of what you on the first video.
An portoguese cork axe.
So........the dane axe is not what I want for chopping wood? Damn........I would have looked so cool.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Longsword" bullshit that's going on youtube right now. Dane Axes deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Dane Axe in Sweden for 160500 Krona (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my Dane Axe.
Viking smiths spend years working on a single axe and hammer it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Dane Axes are thrice as sharp as longswords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a dane axe can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a dane axe could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Scandinavia? That's right, they were too scared to fight the ferocious Vikings and their Dane Axes of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with viking bloodline first because their killing power was feared and respected.
angry 7 Nice copypasta
Hey. Matt, let me see your Warface!
OK, can you stop this now. i'm trying to hold off playing Mount and Blade until Bannerlord is released but you keep waving my favorite weapon in my face and it's getting pretty hard to resist temptation! i may need counceling :(
Being overly thick and heavy is a common misconception about allot of antique weapons.
Cold steel makes one that meets most of your criteria, 20 cm blade and 2 to 3 mm thick but I can't find an accurate head weight on it, called "Viking axe" (not "Viking hand axe" which is a different model).
The shape of the Cold Steel one is not very historical and the total weight is 2100g, so I guess it's overweight as well.
Maybe they are thick is so people don't think it's cheap
Take a look at Artofswordmaking.com by
Maciej Kopciuch. Perhaps he has a axe that suits your taste
If you end up with to many make a throne. ^^
Gimlis axe wasn't that big was it?
Going by official movie replicas his first axe, the bearded one, has a 8 inches (20 cm) cutting head, so smaller than Matt's desired ax. The two headed one (that he supposedly gets in Balin's tomb) is 11 inches (28 cm). But they are 3/8'' thick, so about double of a danish axe, going by Matt's video, they are no worse than "historic reproduction" ones. Source for Gimli's axes dimensions: iloveswords.com/LOTR5.html
800g- the weight of two homemade loaves!
Pet-a-son type m.
Arms & Armour seem to make good replicas, check out "The Wanderer" youtude channel.