posted 06-23-2003 05:12 AM               

For myself I feel that only a fool or a brave weapons master would choose to use a Dane axe in a one on one fight, especially against a sword and shield man. I claim that the axe is a pure battlefield weapon designed to be used in fighting lines and as a front against cavalry. For me its very existence shows that relatively close ranks must have been used on the field. An experienced Dane axe man is, however, and as I have stated before, very capable of defending himself by use of a secondary weapon and by judicious use of the axe (and, if broken by its remains).

As far as technique is concerned, a full power vertical downward stroke held long with the axe is virtually suicidal, if you miss - the blade becomes grounded and takes an age to recover. I think that the 45-degree strike or near horizontal swing was the method for swinging the axe long handed (i.e. both hands near the base of the haft). I have seen axe users use the but end of the haft to poke and measure and then to throw the axe, with force, when required As far as the figure of eight swing is concerned it is in fact relatively easy to get inside the swing, to vary the direction and timing of the axe is difficult mid-swing and will, more often leave the axe man even more open to attack. In my opinion the figure of eight was more of a frightener, more of a “come on if you think you’re hard enough”.

As far as blocking a Dane axe or similar with an arm… er… no! If Talhoffer did suggest this he must have drunk a vicious amount of lager that day and I, personally, have lost any little respect I had for the old geezer. I can half see the slapping aside of the blade working if you had the speed, skill & guts… but a straight block… never in a month of Harvest moons… Even C16th armour wouldn’t be able to stand that sort of bashing, if your arm wasn’t severed immediately then you would need to lose it anyway, otherwise they’d be still trying to get the torn and bent vambrace out of your flesh when you died screaming and stinking of gangrene.

Bottom line is, as far as we know, the Dane axe was used almost exclusively by the experienced professional warriors of the King’s household, these men were the immensely strong, highly trained and heavily armoured titans of the field. When the Huscarls did eventually get involved in the fighting, with or without axe, then the claret was gonna flow. I don’t think that the Dane axe was ever carried as a sole weapon – it would have formed just a part of a Huscarls weapons caddy. We know that the effect of the Dane axe was awesome in battle if only by the fact that first the Saxons and then the Normans were very quick to adopt it. An axeman behind the first row stepping in and out of the occasional breech and causing mayhem is how I see it used.

The Dane axe remained on the battlefield in a variety of guises for hundreds of years and, to my knowledge, was never a duelling weapon, lets not try to make it into one.

It, it is, however, an excellent item to lean on and look mean.

posted 06-23-2003 10:02 PM               

Now pole-axes are somewhat different, but they seemed effective enough. Their main adantage is the top spike and back spike/hammer, correct? I'm sure the weight and, therefore, feel is different as well, but reach is mighty useful in a duel and the dane axe has that as well.

posted 06-25-2003 06:11 AM               

Good question that Goldenviper… The Vikings certainly fought duels, basically the Viking “Holmgangr” was held within a small square arena called a “hide” and was traditionally fought with sword and shield. The rules and method of combat varied as to the period and nationality of the fighters, the Danes had different rules from the Norwegians etc. I have heard of hand axe sometimes replacing the sword (by mutual agreement) but the use of shields and the shape of the arena seem to remain as constants.

Now pole-axes are somewhat different, but they seemed effective enough. Their main adantage is the top spike and back spike/hammer, correct? I'm sure the weight and, therefore, feel is different as well, but reach is mighty useful in a duel and the dane axe has that as well.

I’m not sure about this idea… the medieval pollaxe is similar…ish but shorter than a Dane axe. It’s also more of a swiss army, all purpose tin opener than an axe. No… I liken a Dane axe more to the bardishe of the later periods… were things like that used in duels? Also you are talking a much later time frame and after the introduction of the formalised tournament - i.e. a contest of sporting prowess rather than an attempt to maim/kill each other in recompense for some affront or other.

To use ol' Silver again, he said the battle-axe had the advantage over the sword & target. Of course, he was all about reach...

Ah… ol’ Silver… there was a proper chap… he could beat off a whole army with a boiled parsnip, a beanbag and a quick chorus of “oh Danny boy”. Most men, however, were and remain mere humans.

posted 06-25-2003 04:15 PM               

Interesting. However, I'm unsure if the dueling arguement is especially useful in deciding what was the "best" weapon (a rather silly subject anyways, but amusing). As far as I can tell, duel generally imposed a standard of equipment. As you say, it was sword & shield vs. sword & shield, or axe & shield vs. axe, or, later on, pollaxe vs. pollaxe, etc.

It was meant as contest of men, not of weapons...

//but shorter than a Dane axe.//

Really? I was under the impression that pollaxes ranged from 5 to 7 feet in length. How long were Dane Axes?

//Ah… ol’ Silver… there was a proper chap… he could beat off a whole army with a boiled parsnip, a beanbag and a quick chorus of “oh Danny boy”. Most men, however, were and remain mere humans.//

posted 06-26-2003 05:30 AM               

You did enquire as to what duelling weapons would have been contempory to the Dane Axe… I agree that the duel was a contest of men not weapons, however, I also understand that Viking holmgangrs very often tested weapons to destruction, especially shields (someone’s going to go ballistic now and claim that a shield is not a weapon). Basically if your kit didn’t make it, neither did you.

I was under the impression that pollaxes ranged from 5 to 7 feet in length. How long were Dane Axes?

You are no doubt correct in which case I shall stand back and stare at my boot tips. My limited experience of pollaxes and pollaxe combat is a live demonstration at the Royal Armouries in Leeds (England), their axes are about four feet in length, if memory serves. I would have thought that anything the length that you mention would be regarded more as a bill, or a halberd or… a Dane axe.

//Ah… ol’ Silver… there was a proper chap… he could beat off a whole army with a boiled parsnip, a beanbag and a quick chorus of “oh Danny boy”. Most men, however, were and remain mere humans.//

I've only read bits of Paradoxes of Defense, you'll pardon me if I have no idea what your talking about...

Me being facetious and trying to be funny - obviously not very successfully. George Silver was without doubt a very skilled, gifted, and a very dangerous man. I do feel, however, that some (by no means all) of Silver’s techniques and ideas will only work if you are George Silver but this is fodder for another thread.

De Boissey

posted 06-26-2003 08:40 AM               

Yes, and I thank you for the information. I didn't mean to sound quite so contrary.

//You are no doubt correct in which case I shall stand back and stare at my boot tips. My limited experience of pollaxes and pollaxe combat is a live demonstration at the Royal Armouries in Leeds (England), their axes are about four feet in length, if memory serves. I would have thought that anything the length that you mention would be regarded more as a bill, or a halberd or… a Dane axe.//

Well, the exact nature of any named weapon is rather open. I tend to think of bills as rather specific, with all their odd hooks and lugs, but halberds and pollaxes often seem interchangable... anyways, many fight masters reguarded all such weapons as "one in fight".

Now that I think about, the pollaxe's advantages over the Dane axe are probably sizeable. The metal strips down the sides prevent the head from being hacked off (not that I consider this a great threat, but more durability couldn't hurt), the guard protects your hands, and the butt spike adds a nice balancing effect.

Furthermore, the the butt spike and top spike can be used to thrust far more effectly than with a Dane axe.

I'd give the advantage to 6-foot pollaxe over the sword and shield, but I'm not as sure about the Dane axe...

//Me being facetious and trying to be funny - obviously not very successfully.//

I understood the general thrust of the matter, but I figured the parsnip & beanbag was some inside joke or reference to a text I hadn't read...

...but, for some reason, Silver's work hasn't struck me as especially outrageous - most of his suggestions seem quite reasonable.

What special technique does he suggest when fighting battle axe vs. sword and target? All I've seen is that he gives the advantage to the battle axe (which certainly goes along with his general theory that long two-handed weapons are better than anything else).

As side note, what did the "battle axe" of Silver day look like, anyways?

posted 06-27-2003 05:26 AM               

I have never used a pollaxe in combat, I’d love to give it a go. I may get the chance at one of the medieval shows this summer - I’ll let you know my thoughts when I know more about the weapon.

I'd give the advantage to 6-foot pollaxe over the sword and shield, but I'm not as sure about the Dane axe...

I own a Dane axe… I’m not sure that I would want to risk trashing it against a pollaxe, my thoughts are that the Dane axe is more of a thoroughbred, the pollaxe a fighting mongrel. It would be an interesting bout.

What special technique does he suggest when fighting battle-axe vs. sword and target? All I've seen is that he gives the advantage to the battle axe (which certainly goes along with his general theory that long two-handed weapons are better than anything else).

He supports the theory that all “weapons of reach” have the advantage, unfortunately there aren’t any specific examples of technique for the particular combination that you mention, it is possible to mix his opinions and take what he says about the short staff against sword and buckler and alter the short staff technique for halberd taking into consideration the reduction of wards and use of the head. What he does say, interestingly, is that “all long staves, forest bills, javelins and such long weapons… the shortest has the ‘vantage, because they can cross and uncross in shorter time…” this theory doesn’t seem to take into consideration the weight and complexity of the weapon especially when “crossing and uncrossing” and leaves you wanting to ask questions of the man.

As side note, what did the "battle axe" of Silver day look like, anyways?

The only example I have seen is basically a pollaxe without all the knobbly bits, you have an effective axe blade opposite a spike, the haft is wooden but is protected by iron “langets” (the iron bands running down the shaft). In explicably there is an iron ball, on this particular example, where the top spike would be on a pollaxe. This has earned it the name of the “golf trophy” within our happy band of knights. It also weighs about as much as an adult minky whale and, therefore, spends much of its life in the weapons rack. I have only relatively recently started to collect and use mid - medieval weaponry, my knowledge of later stuff is small indeed. I throw the question wider, what’s the difference between a black bill, a brown bill and a forest bill and what is a Morris pike? Does it have ribbons and bells attached to it? (Bad joke for English people).

De Boissey.

posted 07-09-2003 07:10 AM               

Even in our reenactment where cutting to the head and thrusting to the face is not allowed and you have to pull blows, there are still many techniques the the dane axe user can attempt.

I won't try to list them all because I would be here all day. So just a few.

Stance;
If fighting a right handed swords man, use the axe left sided so the left hand is at the back and right is at the front. Then you can make stabs into the non shielded side.

Use many stabs to the right shoulder (face for real).

Use the top of the axe to push onto the sword blade or hand if possible there by either controling it or hurting the hand (for real). Then you can turn the axe head and cut for the shoulder.

You do not need big cutts with the axe, thrusting and small chops can cause lots of problems for the swordsmen.

use distance and stepping off line to get to the targets. Use small circular motions, or should I say spirals to bring the axe into undefended areas.

If the opponent is useing closed and open line shield work as per the SPADA article, use circular fienting and stepping to make the shield users close or open the door, then spiral to the otherside aiming for either the sword hand or the shoulder/face.

This does not guarrantee anything and in the end it depends on the combatants. Just use the axes distance advantage and the added power that maybe you can generate by having two hands on the weapon.

Hooking shields is a two sided coin, basically if you hook him he has hooked you. The best chance you have of taking advantage of that is with a two handed axe, but remember he still has the sword arm free, and one of your hands are close.

We could discuss this subject for ever and a day, we need to get out and do it!

All the best

Col

posted 07-10-2003 02:11 AM               

Morris pike, I believe, is a alteration of Moorish pike and is basically just a pike. I'm not sure how long they were. Over 12 feet, I assume...

As for the bills, I'm not really sure, but the black bills that Silver talks about seem to be shorter and heavier (much like a halberd or battle-axe), while the Forest bills are of the perfect length (eight or nine feet if I remember correctly) and presumably lighter.

posted 07-11-2003 11:50 AM               

. Peter Woodward in "Conquest" demonstrated a technique of using the axe to beat constantly at the opponents shield, effectivally keeping the swordsman on the defensive until either the shield or the swordsman gave way, or the axe man got in a body blow.

Effective as demonstrated. The swordsman was constantly trying to recover off his back foot, while the axeman drove forward - blow after blow after blow. In this case the swordsman eventually tripped over backward.

http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/series_showcase.jsp?EGrpType=Series&Id=230459&NetwCode=THC

------------------
Pa. Director Clan Cameron Association
Il meglio e l'inimico del bene" - Boccacio

posted 08-16-2003 06:03 PM               

In a combat situation, If a person with a big ax went against a moderate sized sword, all the sword wielder has to do is get beyond the reach of the blade of the ax. But the ax weilder can't without backing up, and then he has more weight so the sword weilder would still be able to stay in the area of combat.

posted 08-17-2003 12:03 PM            

It isn't anywhere near as one-sided as that. A 2-handed axe CAN block and parry, and it can be kept moving fast enough to keep a swordsman at a distance. Because he's better not get within the arc of that axe if he knows what's good for him.

posted 08-18-2003 10:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seamus Liam Clark:
Peter Woodward in "Conquest" demonstrated a technique of using the axe to beat constantly at the opponents shield, effectivally keeping the swordsman on the defensive until either the shield or the swordsman gave way, or the axe man got in a body blow. Effective as demonstrated. The swordsman was constantly trying to recover off his back foot, while the axeman drove forward - blow after blow after blow. In this case the swordsman eventually tripped over backward.

---

Hi Seamus,

If an axe man is able to beat on your shield like that then you are employing it incorrectly. When fighting in single conbat, you should NEVER hold the shield face on. It should either be edge on to your left with the edge (and your knuckles) facing the opponent or on the inside guard (less useful) with the other edge/ your elbow facing the enemy. Just like a sword, a shield is used to close lines and bind.

If I am in the outside shield guard with the edge of my shield facing the enemy then my outside line is closed and an attack on my shield is futile as in the same fencing time as the axe lands I can thrust in return.

If the axe man attacks to my inside line perhaps with a vertical strike to my head then I simply turn the shield to the inside guard and as the axe slides off the face, thrust him in return.

I assume here we are talking about a two handed axe vs a sword and shield guy in single combat.

If we are talking about an axe man attacking from behind a shield wall against another shield wall then we have a different situation. In this situation the axe guy will not be in the front rank and will not therefore be able to advance without walking into the spear and shield guy whose job it is to hold the line. He can certainly attempt to batter down an opponent's shield to open him up for the spearmen, this is a good tactic.
Cheers,
Stu.

posted 08-19-2003 11:11 AM               

quote:

---

If the axe man attacks to my inside line perhaps with a vertical strike to my head then I simply turn the shield to the inside guard and as the axe slides off the face, thrust him in return.

---

posted 08-22-2003 12:48 PM            

Other than that narrow instance, the sword wins on all counts. Not even close IMO. The axe is slower, has much narrower range, no (or at best weak) thrust. The advantage of power is largely moot unless you factor in the need to penetrate plate.

No, the sword is all death up one edge and down the next. No culture that had adequate resources opted for the axe over the sword.

There is no doubt a discussion to be had regarding efficiency of use of scarce metal, the penetration of the axe, and a slight ability to overstrike the edge of a shield. But one-on-one, all else being equal and with no really high quality armor, not a close call.

By all means, hit your local SCA chapter and try 'em out for yourself. Axes work great in battles with lines drawn. They work better if you have super slow hands and can't strike quickly with a sword. But otherwise, not a good matchup in single combat.

posted 08-22-2003 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stuart McDermid:

When fighting in single conbat, you should NEVER hold the shield face on.

---

Sorry Stu, but I have to disagree. Saying the shield is NEVER held face forward in single combat is a little premature, and simply not supportable in the iconographic record (which has justifiably been used in SPADA to support the inside and outside ward system described in Talhoffer).

Based on a considerable amount of iconography I have personally seen (of which I unfortunately have only a fraction stored) stretching back to Gladiators with scuta to Normans with teardrop shields and on to Italian militiamen with pavisses (I have sent some of these images to Steve for use in his upcoming article on large curved shields), there is indeed a strong argument to be made that certain types of shield, such as highly curved teardrops (or "kites"), scuta and pavisses may indeed be held largely in front in even single combat(or in an effective "middle ward").

IMO this is because the nature of the shields differs to the shorter, flat Viking round shield. A large teardrop shield for example, can cover the low and high lines simultaneously, and the curve of the shield covers the outside and inside lines very easily, while the narrower, curved face makes attempts at shield binding (which as you know is so effective with large flat shields) much less effective. In my experience such attempts often simply glance off, especially if the shield man assists by rotating his curved shield and disengaging.

I don't discount the benefit of opening the ward to invite an attack, since a chap with a large teardrop remaining in middle ward can lead to a boring standoff, with little to no effective target for the opponent. I just don't think we are in a position to start asserting that things were definitely done this way, all the time in all periods with all manner of shields. That is a bit too much "cup already full" for my comfort.

I think the biggest danger to the burgeoning discipline of Western shield and sword reconstruction currently underway is to start making definitive statements with a sketchy and incomplete set of data points. Paul's and Steve's work in this area is terrific, but as they say, it is a beginning and not an end point.

quote:

---

If I am in the outside shield guard with the edge of my shield facing the enemy then my outside line is closed and an attack on my shield is futile as in the same fencing time as the axe lands I can thrust in return.

If the axe man attacks to my inside line perhaps with a vertical strike to my head then I simply turn the shield to the inside guard and as the axe slides off the face, thrust him in return.

---

And if I have a large, curved teardrop shield, I can quite easily cover all of these lines holding the shield forward too, with perhaps a slight rotation combined with stepping forward into the axe man’s attack to ensure it is mostly the face of the shield intercepting the haft of the axe (and not the edge of the axe, which is best avoided at all costs IMO).

If I want to invite an attack from you, I may cant the shield at a slight angle to expose a target I want you to strike at, but as Paul has said in the past, it is much subtler than with a flat round shield.

Either way, in contrast to some of the other suggestions I've seen, IMHO the real key for the shield and swordsman is actually to get close and personal to the axe man as soon as the axe man attacks. Choke him and his axe up at close distance with your shield (where his power and range advantages are lost) and where you can hit him with your free, and much shorter sword, as well as shoving with your shield. Staying out at wide distance is a losing proposition, since you're then playing his game where his superior range will win out.

I don't want to come down too hard here Stu, but I think we need to keep our minds open. I'm looking forward to catching up with you and I sincerely hope we get the chance to try all this out, shields in hand and in person, someday soon.

Cheers,

William

[This message has been edited by William C (edited 08-22-2003).]

posted 08-23-2003 06:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:
Sorry, my axe wielding friends, but the only narrow instance where the axe would have an advantage would be if both fighters were heavily armored.

Other than that narrow instance, the sword wins on all counts. Not even close IMO. The axe is slower, has much narrower range, no (or at best weak) thrust. The advantage of power is largely moot unless you factor in the need to penetrate plate.

No, the sword is all death up one edge and down the next. No culture that had adequate resources opted for the axe over the sword.

There is no doubt a discussion to be had regarding efficiency of use of scarce metal, the penetration of the axe, and a slight ability to overstrike the edge of a shield. But one-on-one, all else being equal and with no really high quality armor, not a close call.

By all means, hit your local SCA chapter and try 'em out for yourself. Axes work great in battles with lines drawn. They work better if you have super slow hands and can't strike quickly with a sword. But otherwise, not a good matchup in single combat.

Skeeter

---

Sorry my uninformed simian friend, but are you are terribly mistaken. Besides being able to go over a shield, a dane axe would shatter the shield on a direct hit, and shear through it if it made edge contact. If the axe happens to get stuck in the shield, the axeman will pull out his scramaseax/dagger and thrust the swordsmen who is too worried about his cloven shield arm.

The axe does not haqve a weak thrust either. An M type Dane axe can penetrate maille with a thrust. Helmets dont stand a chance for stopping a chop. Like the poor sling, the axe is always last to be chosen for such an extremely effective weapon.

posted 08-26-2003 07:40 PM               

I still think people see the axe as a slow sword. You can't treat defending against an axe as a sword.

Just getting your sword or shield in the way is not going to be enough, you have to have a lot more weight behind your deflection to stop a 2h axe. I think that redefines the fight somewhat.

IF you avoid getting hit by the head, the axe is just like a quaterstaff (just?) - a quaterstaff with 10x the momentum, yes.

References to just having to get inside the axemans reach are rather amusing.. whatever weapon your opponent is using, you're in a pretty solid position if you're inside his guard.. the assumption here seems to be that axe wielders are too slow and crude to actually fight.. they just hack!

As regards armor.. it's a bit odd to disregard armor penetration in a discussion of melee weapons! If you want an evenly matched duel use the same weapons.. if you want to compare weapons surely you must consider their ability, or lack of it to hurt someone appropriately dressed.

quote:

---

No culture that had adequate resources opted for the axe over the sword.

---

One might just as well argue that the sword was seldom used in preference to alternatives, being more of a backup weapon.

posted 08-26-2003 08:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:
Sorry, my axe wielding friends, but the only narrow instance where the axe would have an advantage would be if both fighters were heavily armored.

Other than that narrow instance, the sword wins on all counts. Not even close IMO. The axe is slower, has much narrower range, no (or at best weak) thrust. The advantage of power is largely moot unless you factor in the need to penetrate plate.

No, the sword is all death up one edge and down the next. No culture that had adequate resources opted for the axe over the sword.

There is no doubt a discussion to be had regarding efficiency of use of scarce metal, the penetration of the axe, and a slight ability to overstrike the edge of a shield. But one-on-one, all else being equal and with no really high quality armor, not a close call.

By all means, hit your local SCA chapter and try 'em out for yourself. Axes work great in battles with lines drawn. They work better if you have super slow hands and can't strike quickly with a sword. But otherwise, not a good matchup in single combat.

Skeeter

---

You're ignoring the single biggest factor: the skill of the individuals in question. Just because you can't make an axe work well does not mean no one can. Personally, I find a two handed axe to be a wonderfully versatile weapon. It is not just hacking away at your opponent. A properly used axe can block a sword. What happens if you use a sword to block, say, a Danish axe?

Weak thrusts? How do you figure? Even if the axe has nothing sharp pointed at the enemy, it can still thrust with speed and power. The blunt end of the haft can smack the hell out of the enemy's face, which does a good job of distracting him long enough for the axeman to bring his weapon around in a powerful blow. I think the only real defense against a big axe is to get out of its way.

posted 08-26-2003 09:58 PM               

Some good points. You are right that there is evidence that people held shields face on in single combat. They just didn't do it in the re-enactor fashion we are all used to seeing. ie dead square to target.

posted 08-27-2003 05:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric:
Several points -

I still think people see the axe as a slow sword. You can't treat defending against an axe as a sword.

Just getting your sword or shield in the way is not going to be enough, you have to have a lot more weight behind your deflection to stop a 2h axe.

---

Well, I disagree and I think your last sentence illustrates confusion over the term "deflection". Deflections by their nature don't usually rely on force - sometimes quite the opposite.

I think you are confusing choking up and stifling a blow or deflecting it with the shield at close distance to some kind of bizarre Conanesque smashing parry where you stand your ground, grunt and try to oppose the full momentum of the axe swing with brute force through your own shield. There's absolutely no need, since getting well within the end of the axe head (where the momentum is greatest) will allow you to stifle the swing where it is weakest, and where the shield can easily deflect and/ or absorb the leftover force.

Closing distance at great speed against an axe man who is already helping close the distance to you by stepping forward to attack is hardly the monumentous task you imply.

He begins to swing the axe and step forward in the time of the hand and foot, you immediately respond by stepping forward into his attack and push your shield into his armpit/ shoulder on the side he is attacking from. Depending on the range you achieve his arm, axe shaft, or even his hands smack into the face of your shield, stifling his blow and skinning his knuckles (if he's lucky). Simple. Of course skill and other factors come into it, but it is hardly impossible.

A large (i.e. Norman style) teardrop shield, such as the chin to shin sized shields seen in the late 11th and 12th centuries will do this most easily, but it can be done with large centre gripped round (Viking) shields too, and the edge of the flat shields can be used to pin the arm/ shoulder very aggressively with a step forward into the attack.

The key is that you intercept the blow close to the point of rotation (i.e. close to the axe man, his shoulder, hands and body) where the momentum is weakest. This is basic physics.

Staying out at wide distance however, could mean wearing the edge of the long axe, with a full swing behind it, right in your shield. The axe head will go right through. Hence my comments to the effect that the safest place for the shield man to be is right up in axe man's face, where he must resort to grappling with the axe, shorter, less powerful blows or flying out to try and resume hewing.

Meanwhile, you are cutting, thrusting and bludgeoning him to a grisly end with your sword, which is made even easier since he doesn't have the benefit of 3 to 5 foot of wood covering his body.

Finally, I never said the axe man was a chump. Clearly the axe can be very dangerous. I am simply pointing out strategies for a sword and shield man to employ.

quote:

---

IF you avoid getting hit by the head, the axe is just like a quaterstaff (just?) - a quaterstaff with 10x the momentum, yes.

References to just having to get inside the axemans reach are rather amusing.. whatever weapon your opponent is using, you're in a pretty solid position if you're inside his guard.. the assumption here seems to be that axe wielders are too slow and crude to actually fight.. they just hack!

---

Err, you seem a little defensive over this issue, which is, in all honestly, not all that important.

No, there is a lot more to axe play than brutish hacking. And I have no doubt that a veteran Huscarl with a long axe was a fearsome opponent back in the day.

But the fact remains that the shield was nearly universally carried (even the Huscarls with long axes have their shields slung over their backs on the Bayeux Tapestry) by the wealthiest warriors to the poorest (who often had nothing else but a spear) from ancient times up until well into the 14th century in Europe (and beyond). There's a good reason for this, and IMO it is because they worked like a treat as part of a balanced weapons system.

quote:

---

Axes, and axe-like weapons were used by choice, by professional soldiers throughout the Middle Ages.

---

As were shields, swords, spears and maces. Which proves little except that variety is the spice of life, and warriors back then clearly had their own personal preferences as we do today.

Cheers,

posted 08-27-2003 08:46 AM               

Many people envisage single combat weapon and shield play as standing in distance or on the very forward edge of wide distance throwing and blocking blows as quickly as possible.

Based on evidence from Talhoffer, nothing could be further from the truth. Just like single sword play, weapon and shield is conducted using a great deal of footwork and by moving around, away from, or closer to your opponent. Often a weapon or shield is pulled back or advanced in order to force an engagement.
Since both fighters are limited to the time of the hand and foot, the speed of the axe is not really an issue here. Recovery of blows and defence certainly are. Axes should not be underestimated. They can hook weapons and shields, can hit targets through a block both via momentum and by simply having the cutting edge in advance of the weapon.