|
 NetSword Discussion Forums
 NetSword Medieval Weapons Discussion
 Double bladed axes
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Double bladed axes |
|
Tomasz Zieba Member |
posted 04-12-2002 05:04 PM
   
Hi people. I'm new to this forum, and I joined only to get some technical feedback. Here's my problem. I'm in the process of designing a fantasy role playing game. (I hope that everyone knows more or less what a role playing game is). Right now I'm about to start writing the chapter about armor and weapons. Right now I have a specific question about battle axes. And, more specific, double bladed battle axes. Anyone who is familiar with fantasy literature, art and movies will notice, if he pays attention, that double bladed battle axes are very popular. I might venture to say that they are more popular than axes with a single blade. What I want to know if double bladed axes existed for real and if they did, how effective they were? Were they any better than axes with a single blade? One more thing, just out of curiosity, what is better when fighting a mounted opponent? A long axe or a long sword? Thank you in advance IP: Logged |
|
Abb314 Member |
posted 04-12-2002 06:29 PM
Double-bladed axes existed like this replica from Arms and Armor:  The page says double-bladed axes were used in the East, but never in Europe. As a side note, if I had to face a mounted opponent (from foot) I wouldn't use an axe or a sword, I'd use a polearm (along with 40 or so buddies). Better reach, plus thrusting and hooking capabilities in addition to chopping. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Tomasz Zieba Member |
posted 04-12-2002 07:29 PM
Can anyone tell me more about these axes? For some reason many fantasy writers think that they are cool. I want to especially know how effective they are against armor (heavy armor especially). Going back to fighting horsemen. It just so happens that I do know that polearms are much better for this. But lets assume that the only weapon you can choose is either an axe or a sword. IP: Logged |
|
Marshal Member |
posted 04-12-2002 07:49 PM
The double-bitted axe existed in the Middle East and in India, certainly, but outside of the Minoan labrys ( from antiquity ) I am not aware of any ever being used in Europe. Your second question depends upon what if any armor is to be faced. Against plate the axe will fare much better than the sword; if no or little armor is worn the longer reach and point of the sword would IMO make it superior; against mail it's probably a toss-up ( I assume we're talking horsemen's axes, not Dane axes or other infantry weapons. Or did you mean for use by a man on foot against a mounted foe? ) IP: Logged |
|
Stuart McDermid Member |
posted 04-12-2002 08:23 PM
Worth mentioning that an axe with one standard head and a back spike is a much better armour breaker. A Poleaxe is much better again. Cheers Stu. IP: Logged |
|
Marshal Member |
posted 04-13-2002 01:32 AM
Yep. In fact that may be the reason the double-headed axe never caught on in Europe---why put on a redundant second blade when you could have a completely different type of striking surface ( like a piercing spike or a smashing hammer ) on the opposite side instead? Vive la versatility! IP: Logged |
|
Felix Member |
posted 04-13-2002 11:50 AM
If both fighters are mounted, I believe they would be better off with longswords rather than long(two-handed) axe or pollaxe. A longsword is a pretty easily handled weapon, and many of the "staff" techniques of a long axe or pollaxe would probably be harder to do on horseback than on terra firma. Now if one guy on on foot, he is probably better off with a long axe or even better, the pollaxe or halberd. IP: Logged |
|
Glaive203 Member |
posted 04-14-2002 12:04 AM
well the dane did use a 'double edged' axe;but as it is rare and never matched the popularity of a single edged axe or hatchet,even without the extras of spikes,hammers of hooks we can safely conclude that it was not more effective,while at the same time would be more expensive to make. IP: Logged |
|
streethawk101 Member |
posted 04-14-2002 12:58 AM
Double headed axes just look more aesthetically pleasing that single ones. less effective than a back spike and most likely a fair bit heavier. Against mounted opposition from foot... well house carls did we with their single axes so i'd think they were pretty good. Against armour pretty damn good, due to the weight of the head. IP: Logged |
|
Just a Bum Member |
posted 04-15-2002 05:46 PM
They prabably had them double sided becuase they looked cooler and they didn't need a hammer or pike as they didn't face the heavy armor of the europeans ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Egfroth Member |
posted 04-16-2002 12:40 AM
Here's where I get to show off my knowledge. I KNEW collecting photocopies of every picture saw of armour or combat would serve me in good stead eventually. Yes, there are pictures of double headed axes being used in mediaeval Western Europe. One is the mid 9th century Frankish "Utrecht Psalter", where a couple of infantry are using them. The other is an illumination from about 1170 - it MIGHT be the Winchester Bible, but I don't have the backup documentation. This shows double-headed axes with straight sides and very short handles being used as a cavalry weapon. There are (rare) pictures of Byzantines or Armenians using them as well, but again short handled, and cavalry use only. Streethawk; not so much the weight of the head (they are suprisingly light) but the length of the shaft. Momentum = force x distance. Glaive, the "2-edged Viking axe" thing is I believe the result of an unfortunate mistranslation. One of the chroniclers of the Fourth Crusade of 1204 refers to the Viking/English Varangian Guard defending Constantinople using "caudatis bipennibus", which is usually translated "double axes." There are no contemporary pictures of two-headed axes used by the Vikings or Anglo-Saxons, nor, despite a VERY comprehensive number of axe-finds, are there any in the archaeological record from this region. On the other hand, look at the English axes in the Bayeux Tapestry, for example at http://www.hastings1066.com/bayhi2a.shtml and the Varangians with their axes in the Byzantine Skylitzes Chronicle at http://geocities.com/egfrothos/Varangians.html , and the picture starts to become clearer - "caudatis bipennibus" does not translate as "double axes". The "bipennibus" means "double-feathered" - a reference, I believe, to the two "feathers" (I'd prefer to use the word "wings" myself, but what the hell) of a single-edged "dane-axe", as opposed to the "skeggox" or bearded axe, which has only one "wing".
"Who was that masked man, papa?" "I don't know son, but he left this silver bullet . . ." ------------------ [This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-16-2002).] [This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 04-16-2002).] IP: Logged |
|
Silver_Knight Member |
posted 05-12-2002 03:26 PM
Double bladed axes are commonly referred as Battle Axes. IP: Logged |
|
joz Member |
posted 05-17-2002 03:35 PM
quote: Actually p (momentum)= m (mass).v (velocity) Where v = w (omega or angular velocity).r (radius i.e length of shaft if swung with hand as centre of motion) + any transverse velocity components (i.e velocity of hand if hand is at centre of circular motion).. IP: Logged |
|
Ny Björn Member |
posted 05-17-2002 04:52 PM
There is only one find of a double-edged axe from Scandinavian Viking Age that I know of. It was found in the 19th century at Birka on Björkö and it can currently be seen at the permanent Iron Age exhibition at the Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm. -It is very far from the popular picture of a Wagner-Viking's axe though; It's rather small and quite clearly a carpenter's axe with one edge for more rough cutting and one smaller for more finer cutting. The axe head is approx. 15 cm long in all. Regards /Ny Björn IP: Logged |
|
Egfroth Member |
posted 05-23-2002 03:17 AM
quote: Nobody likes a smartarse, you know . . . ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
eddie smith Member |
posted 06-13-2002 01:18 AM
They look impresive, is why I think they show up so much in fantasy. But from what I have seen in books on arms and armour, and from some meseuems is that single head axes were more popular in real life. I think this is for a couple or reasons 1)single head is lighter than double, quicker recovery time. 2)many single head axes had a hammer or spike on the back, which is ligher than another head, but still deadly. IP: Logged |
|
Donovan Member |
posted 06-18-2002 08:16 AM
Ok I know this isn't quite in line with the topic ...but hey I need the buisness...*S* (Bumping this over from the live steel area) I make battle axes...*S* Ranging in prices from $75.00...$200.00 fantasy, medieval, double-bladed you name it I can make it ...!!! Don Rice c/o IP: Logged |
|
Ian Campbell Member |
posted 06-18-2002 02:55 PM
Daaaamn! That's some axe ya' got there!! ------------------ IP: Logged |
All times are CST, GMT-6 | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us |
NetSword
Netsword.com retains rights to all contained on this site. Writtem permission must be obtained for reprint.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a