posted 08-27-2003 12:37 PM               

Apologies for being too defensive! I will try to be offensive from now on

There's a lot of reference here (unsurprisingly I supposed for a forum of this name), to specific sword technique. This is what you do to fight an axeman. Sure - but I can give you lucid accounts of how to fight a gunman with a potatoe peeler. Prescribed techniques perfectly executed tell you little of the relative merits of the weapons concerned.

I don't take issue with the effectiveness of the sword and shield, or the techniques discussed. I myself would choose sword and shield - but I accept this is because of my own ability not inherent weapon superiority.

I am just wary of the urge to assume - it is frequently assumed that the axeman will attack, that he will attack with a step and a swing, that the swordsman will better exploit timing, distancing and footwork etc. Perhaps I'm wrong but I do sense some here are envisiging their own practice techniques rather than the realities of a live fight between equally skilled combatants.

With regard to the deflection of the axe, I am by no means envisaging a full on parry, which we seem to agree would not be very wise.

However in deflecting a 1h sword you have the advantage of weight and stability. You have a considerable margin for error which I think is much more significant in reality than in theory. With a 2h axe the situation is reversed and your technique must be near perfect.

Since we are dealing with a live fight, not a theoretical technique, you cannot assume perfection. The timing, distancing and angles involved are influenced equally by both combatants, not just one - and we are assuming equal skill.

As you say, the full weight of the swing is in the head of the axe. However it does not disappear instantly at the haft, it decreases gradually between the tip and the hands. Even the haft of a Dane Axe can transmit considerable force and if your defence is not spot on, you can end up smothering your OWN weapon, or setting yourself plum for a mighty hook.

What's more the swordsman cannot really use his sword at all in defence against an axe which is not crippling, but certainly a disadvantage.

Also bear in mind, axemen were often depicted using their weapon 'wrong' handed, such that they threaten the weapon side not the shielded side - this is one of the advantages of 2h weapon vs shield - you can attack on either side, and with either end.

I don't think the axe is as useless as it is made out to be up close either. Again, an axe is not just an axehead - it makes a perfectly good grappling weapon.

posted 08-27-2003 01:59 PM               

What about shield & axe vs. shield and sword or 2h axe vs. 2hd sword? Here I think it mainly comes down to armor...

posted 08-27-2003 07:30 PM            

Alao, the bows of the heyday of the Dane axe was not powerful enough to defeat a rivetted hauberk, so unless you caught one in the face arrows were not really that much of a concern.

posted 08-27-2003 07:51 PM               

quote:

---

Alao, the bows of the heyday of the Dane axe was not powerful enough to defeat a rivetted hauberk, so unless you caught one in the face arrows were not really that much of a concern.

---

I'm not sure I agree, given the pictoral record of pierced mail, but I guess there's no need to get into that here. Rivetted hauberks certainly provided considerable protection against arrows, but I bet it was nice have shield anyways. (An arrow bouncing off of mail hurts a lot more than one glancing of plate) Either way, many soldier didn't have the cash for a good suit of mail - shields were cheap and provide a nice barrier.

posted 08-29-2003 04:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stuart McDermid:

Hey William? If you are the William I think you are, are you coming to the conference in October? If not, sorry for the confusion.
Cheers,
Stu.

---

That's me Stu. And I so want to be in Melbourne this October. It will be great to catch up with everyone, but with Bob coming over from the states it's a must attend.

I should have the money, but here's the kicker - I may be called up for Jury service for up to four weeks starting in October. I'm really hoping I miss the next ballot (there is a second ballot, and if my name comes up I have to make myself available for the full four weeks).

Cheers,

posted 08-29-2003 04:36 PM            

I don't think we can extrapolate a modern recurve bow, even a low-poundage one, to the 11th century shortbow drawn to the chest. There are references aplenty to the disesteem in which this weapon was held at the time, and its reputation for uselessness in war must have had a reason.

posted 09-01-2003 03:49 PM               

Kinda branching off topic, but as regards archery in the Dane-axe/2h axe-like weapon period..

Talking around the 11th century and later, in this period there is relatively good evidence for bows that are not short or particularly weak, and also that the bodkin (which is known all through the Saxon and Viking periods in northern europe) - is somewhat common.

posted 09-02-2003 07:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felix:
Another way of looking at the sword vs. the axe is not one on one, but which one was generally preferred. In that approach, the sword wins hands down.
1. Swords cost more than axes, then and now.
2. Most men in the Middle Ages knew something about handling an axe, at least the very basics; axes were ubiquitous tools. Most peasants did not have as much familiarity with the sword - its use requires more training.
3. Battle axes can stand more abuse. In the Napoleonic wars, one French general complained about the swords his men were issued with - they insisted on using them to cut firewood, and ruining/breaking the swords.
4. Despite the above, the sword is the weapon usually specified when the equipment of soldiers is discussed. In some cases, an axe was allowed as a substitute (if I recall correctly), but swords were more common.

[This message has been edited by Felix (edited 09-01-2003).]

---

posted 09-04-2003 06:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric:
I'd hearily agree on the wisdom of carrying a shield into battle.

Kinda branching off topic, but as regards archery in the Dane-axe/2h axe-like weapon period..

Talking around the 11th century and later, in this period there is relatively good evidence for bows that are not short or particularly weak, and also that the bodkin (which is known all through the Saxon and Viking periods in northern europe) - is somewhat common.

I do think if archery wasn't particularly effective in this period - then it has more to do with the shield than the mail.

---

I'm curious how you would explain two inconsistencies: First, why a bow that could supposedly drive an arrow through a rivetted or solid steel mail link could not drive it through 3/8" of linden wood, and second, if the bows and arrows of this period were so effective against armor why was the bow so little used and so little respected in warfare until the time of the Conqueror and after?

Given the nature of shields---they can't cover everything at once, and aren't likely to be much good against arching fire
( unless you have the tactical discipline and sophistication to make a testudo, which I daresay was to sophisticated for the average 11th century army )---why was archery so ineffectual, if both bows and arrows were right up to Crecy snuff?

posted 09-05-2003 09:16 AM            

I agree it seems unlikely that bows and arrows were right up to Crecy snuff though, since otherwise it is difficult to see how lines of men with (at best) mail hauberks, open face helms and little leg protection, could have held up against an arrow storm (or maybe no-one had thought of using the bows en masse. Perhaps that, rather than the power of individual bows was the issue ?).

posted 09-05-2003 03:56 PM               

A bodkin only really needs to burst one, or a small number of links (depending on size), in order to sink into the man inside, which doesn't need an incredible force.

A shield doesn't cover everything in melee, but in a static position it's perfectly easy to cover yourself from arrow fire.

Statistically if archers fire into the melee, or count on just those lucky few arrows getting through, they won't be effecient use of manpower.

As for the effectiveness of archery, I think it's an interesting debate and all I have are opinions.

As is often said here, just because something could be done doesn't mean people did it.

Maybe the combination of equipping and training men with bows, then equipping them with enough arrows meant they were judged to punch below their weight compared to men in the line.

Also, I think we tend to think in absolutes, archers were not so prevalent as they would become, but they were used (the very existence of the bodkin suggests to me that archers were being used to shoot at mailed men).

The number of archers William deployed at Hastings suggests they were available and effective - yet the fact that the Saxons held their position all day suggests they weren't dominant.

posted 09-05-2003 04:57 PM            

There's ample evidence, and written accounts, from the Crusading period of the difficulty Saracen arrows had in piercing mail, or even felt robes.

posted 09-05-2003 07:37 PM               

quote:

---

There's ample evidence, and written accounts, from the Crusading period of the difficulty Saracen arrows had in piercing mail, or even felt robes.

---

Yet there are conflicting accounts as well. Here's a striking account of the power of archery, from the Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, in the complation "The World of El Cid - Chronicles of the Spanish Reconquest":

"When the day broke, they began to assult the town, and Count Rodrigo Martinez climbed up one of the wooden towers which he had built, and with him went many knights, archers and slingers. Then a certain Saracen shot an arrow by chance towards the siege tower which the count had climbed. Alas! in payment for the count's sinsm, the arrow struck through the framework of the siege tower; the shaft lodged in the frame, but the iron head was separated from the wood and, penerating his helmet and hauberk, it struck the count's neck and wounded him."

The count later died from this wound. Another incident of arrow penetration, from John France's "Victory in the East", taken from the chronicler Albert of Axis:

"Gerard of Quiersy, spotting a Turk on the brow of a hill, drew his shield arcoss him and attacked with his lance; his intended victim, however, fired an arrow which went through the shield and struck him between the liver and lungs, and while he lay dying the Turk made off with his horse. As the Frankish forced the crossing of the Iron Bridge he again mentions Turkish arrows piercing a hauberk."

The former Frankish knight could have been going into battle without his hauberk, but I seriously doubt it. I suspect the went through both wood and mail. Turkish archery was especially feared by the Crusaders... obviously, it wasn't a nuke - nothing was in those times. But it was an effective strategy.

Now 11th century wooden bows weren't up to Turkish composite standards (composite bows produce more or less an additional 50% of power per amount of draw weight) but I suspect they were able to go through mail at times. I know I'd want both a shield and mail...

quote:

---

I have to think that that was due to some essential lack

---

I don't really agree with this. Archers were used in the 11th century and before, though never in especially large numbers. There's really no technical lack in the "shortbow" - and the bows used in the 11th century weren't uniformly short, either. "Longbows" are perhaps a tad more accurate and can support higher weights, but that's about it. English longbow archers weren't dramatically better armed, they were mainly just better trained and used in large groups.

posted 09-30-2003 08:15 PM            

But to insist that it is generally a better one-on-one weapon than a sword is absurd. Please, try it out in ANY type of combat recreation group. If you don't like the SCA, fine, try some other group. Show me how you can train fighters with ANY weapon combo that is repeatedly better and a sword and shield combo, and I'll change my mind.

And don't give me the old, "well, you can never recreate real combat" line. That's garbage. Things that work well in training work well in real combat. Don't hide behind the myth that you never really know what happens in a 'real' fight (whatever that is). Please show me a REPLICABLE training platform that proves your point. You can't, because the axe is too slow and of too limited range to compete against a sword one-on-one.

If you have limited space, if you have a battle line, if you have a confused melee situation, don't have enough metal, don't want to replace a chipped blade, different story. But sword versus axe, one on one, the sword will win most often. That goes against the axe, the mace, the flail, and on and on. Is there some cultural issue at work here, where people of 'celtic' lineage want to feel important or something?

INstead of being keyboard warriors with strong opinions, get off your collective asses, don your weapon, and show the thousands of recreation groups how wrong they all are for overwhelmingly adopting the sword and shield, and how you known what 'really' works. Laugh at them as you whoop their asses. Or stay on your sofa insisting that all those groups aren't 'real' combat. Hilarious...

posted 09-30-2003 08:41 PM               

You call into question our credentials. What, exactly, are yours?

posted 10-02-2003 01:15 PM               

Fast, light weapons/blows are vastly overpowered in re-enactment, just as in combat sports.

You dont have to hit hard to 'score', and you are typically not allowed to use a long/heavy weapons weight or momentum.

posted 10-02-2003 07:06 PM            

The SCA does not even approximate it, either in the behavior of the "weapons" or in the fighting methods used. Safety regulations, such as the 90 degree rule for greatweapons, further hamper an accurate assessment: the Dane axe being a greatweapon. One cannot strike with the haft, either. Grappling and striking with the shield are disallowed.

Live steel and living history groups suffer from other deficiencies: either blunt weapons are used, or the action has to be slowed significantly, or even choreographed, in the name of safety and avoiding legal liability. ( A real sword combat with sharps at full speed would probably meet the legal definition of a felony duel. )

Even if these were disregarded, the element of lethal intent would still be missing.

The best we can do is look to history. One might point to Stamford Bridge and Hastings as well as at Lincoln are a few examples where the "inevitable superiority" of sword and shield somehow failed to display itself.

Attempt to evade the fact though one will, there is simply no convincing reason to consider ANY weapon as inherently superior to any other.

By the way---I'm neither of Celtic heritage nor a Celtiphile. Nor was the axe ever primarily Celtic in its adoption. It was used everywhere, from Crete to Finland to Russia to India...not something one would expect of a weapon doomed to fail "one on one" against another competing arm.

posted 10-02-2003 08:06 PM            

Why bother doing ANY training if nothing really works? Gentlemen, just set your variables and have at it, then tell me what really works best. Is there some intangible quality in an axe (but not a sword) that can't be factored out? I don't think so...

Power is the only issue raised that is of real significance. Fine, so do your training and reenactments requiring more power to 'count' as a kill. The sword will still win one-on-one IMO. If you find different, fine, I just haven't seen this to be anywhere near the case.

I'm sure you can jigger the variables to make it close to even if you work at it hard enough. I'm just saying that in the vast majority of cases, a sword is the better weapon for most single combat situations. I thought that's what the original question was...

And let's not buy the 'all things work equally well' or 'it is fighter, not the style/weapon' line of reasoning! Fine, I choose a razor sharp broad sword and medium kite shield, and you get a dagger and parrying cloak. no weapon has superiority to any other?! How about sharp stick versus Glock?

Marshal, I've seen and done plenty where the rules you cite aren't in effect. And it doesn't change things that much. This is like the 'traditional' martial artists who decry modern grappling 'vale tudo' or 'ultimate fighting' techniques by saying that they aren't REAL fights, because in a real fight people gouge eyes and bite.

The reality is that you CAN aproximate real combat. You CAN define the rules to refine what you want to focus on as being accurate. And you CAN test what works (generally) better than something else. Throw out this premise and you'll never have a clue what works in real combat. Throw out this premise and you can never train. Throw out this premise and you have no way to evaluate sound combat technique from speculation.

Set your rules, call your shots, and have the discussion after kicking someone's butt (amicably, of course).

posted 10-02-2003 08:55 PM               

quote:

---

The reality is that you CAN aproximate real combat. You CAN define the rules to refine what you want to focus on as being accurate. And you CAN test what works (generally) better than something else. Throw out this premise and you'll never have a clue what works in real combat. Throw out this premise and you can never train. Throw out this premise and you have no way to evaluate sound combat technique from speculation.

---

Apparently you CAN, but we obviously CAN'T and that's because we value our own lives, and the lives of our partners way too much to "eliminate the variables", which, incidentally, are the only things standing between practitioners of this art, and death.

quote:

---

In every endeavor, I see WAY more opinions on the sidelines than I do on the field.

---

That'd be because every person who has really been on the field is dead. Either from old age, or from the simple act of being on the field.