This thread is inspired by this one: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=38694 but I thought it would be too far off topic.

My question is, is there evidence for certain types of weapons that were regularly also used as tools?

The use of weapons as tools seems to be a popular concept (I recently heard a museum guide say that axes were popular among Vikings because they could also be used to chop wood) but it seems false to me.

An item is generally designed in accordance with it's intended use. An axe for felling is different than one for splitting, let alone one that is intended as a weapon. A chef's knife is intended for slicing vegetables, not for combat. A bayonet is not intended for butchering animals.

Also, generally we can say that weapons are more highly valued than everyday tools. It would not make sense to risk damaging your elaborately decorated sax while clearing some brushes on your farm.

But, even though it may be logical (to me at least, counter arguments welcome! :)), is there any evidence for the historical use of weapons as tools?

There were certainly dozens of sidearms meant, and capable of both being a weapon and fascine work (or other chopping/slicing use).


To easily turn the query around would be the number of tools used as weapons.

I don't know that the former is the best example but by the 19th century, quite a regular process in design.

Cheers
GC

I think Mr. Cleeton's argument that the obverse is more provable is something that is quite true. There are loads of descriptions of peasants taking their tools out into battle in the English risings.. the Peasants Revolt of 1381 and and Jack Cade's rebellion in 1450.

There are definitely examples, some sagas for example, that mention non-military use of small arms like swords.. but the commonality of this is hard to define. It might be notable solely for the actual rarity of it. There are, of course, once we get into a Christian context, allegorical 'turning swords into plowshares' and 'spears into pruning hooks'. I recall that Bede references this at least once. Again, however, it might be the novelty which causes mention.

There are perhaps fewer multi-use designed weapon/tools.. but certain messers, for example, definitely are.

I think that your comment about the 'elaborately decorated sax' is worth picking up on. There is a tendency in the secondary literature to assume that the wealthy/elite in society were somehow frequently (or occasionally) out in the field --in part because the primary sources frequently mention activities like farming. What the original writer means by 'out in the fields' or 'farming' is, perhaps, very different from our modern understanding of working the fields. One thing we have to keep in mind, is that the sort of person who would have an elaborate sax, would have also had a load of slaves and people of lower socio-economic status as servants. No one was wandering about regularly on his own as a 'lone ranger'. If our hypothetical man with an elaborate sax had to clear some bushes on his farm, he would not use his sax.. he would order a slave to do it. The slave would likely have a specific tool to do so.. but that tool could be used as a weapon against our hypothetical sax owner!


Best,
Hadrian

On first instinct I'd go as far as to say that almost all traditional knives, at least in their most popular forms worn by regular people as a matter of custom and everyday use, are either tools-cum-sidearms or sidearms-cum-tools. Norse seaxes, German messers, English bollock knives, American bowies, Nepalese kukri, Finnish puukko, Saami leuku...

Paul,

What are you referring to when you say sax? I know the term sax or seax to refer to single edged knives with blades from small knife size up to sword length. I think a seax with a shorter blade (say 8 inches or less) is very easily classified as a tool. Longer seaxes (14 inch or longer blade, maybe) are pretty clearly weapons, and there is room for overlap in the middle. Your response here and in my other post makes me think that you are using the term seax to refer to the larger examples, while Mikko and I are referring to the more moderate-to-small versions (though I freely admit that I did a poor job of specifying that). The differing opinions that we have on this matter may actually be more a failure to define terms than an actual disagreement.

I think that it should also be pointed out that, at least in my post that you referenced originally, I was talking specifically about knives/daggers. As far as I am aware those are generally not specified in required equipment, so it is easy for me to believe that someone would use the knife they already own rather than buying a dagger that they weren't required to own (though I'm sure both happened). Trying to have a primary weapon (sword, messer, or even, debatibly, an axe - I'm not referring to tools pressed into service as weapons here) that is also a tool, seems a lot less viable to me than a knife/dagger that is both tool and weapon.

I also specifically referred to civilians and poorer soldiers in my post, and I think the demographic in question makes a big difference. Is a knight or lord going to carry a simple knife when they can have a dagger that reflects their status? Very unlikely, but the math doesn't necessarily work the same for a very low income individual. Like the definition of seax, the type of individual being discussed has the opportunity to twist the discussion quite a bit.

-- Greyson

Isn't seax just the Old English word for "knife"? Messer just means "knife" too. My understanding is that if you look at the excavation reports, you find most seaxes with a 3" to 10" blade and plain handle just like working knives in other cultures, and a few long murdrin' irons that are popular with modern customers.

Without knowing too much about the specific weapons being discussed, there were a couple of things I found when I went digging into kukris and machetes a few weeks back. Not trying to argue with people, just pointing out a couple of things I didn't entirely notice til an expert brought them up.

a) longer machetes with a better grip vs shorter machetes with stout handles. Longer = more weaponised, maybe, but also potentially just a better tool for chopping long grass and brush closer to the ground. Eg -

https://youtu.be/qXZ5_THekgE

b) big thick tangs on top .. could be for chopping big thick bits of hard wood, giving inertia going through a target, displacing material as it strikes ... but maybe it's just a great way to give a big "can't miss" area and maximum chance of getting energy from the drop for batoning wood.

https://youtu.be/3vA9JrsBdBY?t=91

I'm sure this is something that could be better answered by going out into rural areas and asking people what their grand-dad used, than by anything you could read in a book.

This is similar tp the chat we were having on another thread about rapiers and left hand daggers. I had noted that apart from some which were long and had features which indicated they were made for purpose, many of them I have seen at sales and in museums ( and a guy I know has over 30 of them from 16th/17th centuries) are relatively small compared to what I would expect for a weapon to parry a sword. Therefore the question is are they left hand daggers which were small for ease of carry or general use daggers which could be used as left hand daggers. We don't know, but I am inclined to think many were the latter.

Particularly in the case of knives, which could be carried commonly in daily life, you would probably incline to something of general use unless you thought you would be in danger on a regular basis.

The one below is a good example. Late 1400s I think and a riverbed/foreshore find probably as corroded but still has the wooden core and some of the leather covering on the handle.

It's a tidy size. Blade about 71/2 inches long, single edged with a thick spine, so strong, with a reinforced point on one side. The reinforced point makes it seem more like a combat weapon as could probably punch through a leather jerkin or something thicker. But equally the sharp single edged blade could have been used for utility purposes like cutting something, the point could have been used for putting a new hole in a leather belt or, as a friend pointed out, the thickened point section would probably mean a piece of meat you skewered at the table wouldn't fall off as you brought it back to your plate ! It could also be a very effective weapon in a pinch.

I think it would have been bought with all the above in mind, plus it's of a size that it could be carried at the side or back of a belt with no inconvenience.

D

---

 Attachment: 33.77 KB



 Attachment: 34.22 KB



 Attachment: 34.69 KB

If anyone is interested in the ordinary 'whittling knife' through 'hunting knife" sized saxes / seaxes / Early Medieval broken-backed knives, Darrell Markewitz has a summary of a good book on early Medieval knives from Coppergate St., York. Out of 34 broken-backed knives from that site, the largest three had blades 14, 14, and 20 cm long.