[Jeremy V. Krause]

Hello everyone,

I don't mean to dig up some controversy but I was thinking. . .
The issue of how swords (let's limit this scope to the Gerbig typology, the X's, Xa's, Xi's, XII and XIIa's, XIII and XIIIa's) and their utility against maille has been discussed ad nauseum.

Well, what about the axe, both the single handed wielded with a shield, which I have not seen in period illustrations but assume to have existed, and the two-handed long-hafted axe which appear in many manuscripts. In my un-informed, but wandering mind it seems that the axe kind of bridges the sword and the impact weapon realms thus providing a weapon with a thin cross section- concentrating the force of a blow to a small area, and the weighted end of the head aiding in the concentration of this impact point.
I am just talking axes here not pole arms, but what do you guys think about the issue of axes meeting mail or even leather, would the axe have been a more specialized weapon in earlier times with the sword (700-1300) as the pole axe and spiked mace became in latter times.
Maybe I'm just talkin' out of my axe here but. . .
Jeremy

[Jean Thibodeau]

The subject may have been discussed ad nauseum but apart from people getting emotional about it, getting answers has been frustrating: Either casual tests have been dismissed as unscientific or scientific tests have been too expensive to do.

So even with all the variables: Good swords versus lousy maille or lousy swords against high quality maille or any combination of quality, some sort of ballpark if not absolute idea should possible to arrive at of how effective swords were against maille.

The usual conclusion is that if swords were completely ineffective they would not have been used and if maille was of very limited effectiveness it wouldn't have been worn!

So if anyone has personnal experience cutting at maille the results even if not scientific or absolute should give at least an idea of what was possible. I guess apart from frustrating discussions about how invalid some tests or conclusions are, I just wish someone would actually mention what the results were. Again even if they don't prove anything once and for all!

As to the really big axes they should either cut through maille more easily than swords, assuming the swords could, or at least do major breaking of bones and internal injuries. Also doing a good job of destroying shields and the arm holding it.

The same effect as a Pole Axe but less well balanced: Held horizontally the heavy head of an axe wants to rotate in the hands while the axe head of the Pole Axe is counterbalanced by the hammer head on the other side giving a more neutral balance.

So at the risk of letting loose the dogs of misunderstanding: Let the arguments begin ........

[G. Scott H.]

[Martin Wallgren]

You could dress up friends you don´t like in maille and line them up in battleorder and steal a Albion Duke and see if you ave any friends left after six minutes...

(No offence intended to anyone, Just a whole lotta irony)

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Aaron Schnatterly]

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Hello everyone,
Though I really have no control over where this disscusion goes I want to emphasize that I did not begin this thread to deal with the sword and maille question but to gain others ideas about the useage of the axe against maille or leather.
The whole sword/maille thing has not been fruitful so can't we just let it be for now?
There are other forums to tackle circullar questions and territorial quibbles. myArmoury has raised the bar on meaningful exchange so let's follow this trend.
So let's discuss axes and light armour.
Jeremy

[Gordon Frye]

Jeremy; I think that there are two answers to the popular use of axes. First of course is that an axe is generally a useful implement outside of the field of battle (one of the main reasons for the popularity of the Tomahawk in frontier combat: useful as well as ornamental). On the other hand, I think that it was probably somewhat more effective against armour and sheilds that a sword is... but the caviat being that it is also more difficult to weild effectively, and has only the edge as a useful offensive part. A sword has of course (usually) two edges and a point, thus being significantly more flexible in it's employment. (It's a lot like the Marines used to say about the Colt .45 Automatic: More effective than a rock, but more difficult to throw accurately).

The above is of course opinion, but fairly well based opinion, I would like to think.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Alina Boyden]

Well, without actually testing an axe versus mail armor we can at least look at some principles of the axe. In my opinion, it is almost a requirement that the axe be better at defeating armor. The reason for this is the nature of the weapon. Firstly, the axe has a smaller area of impact than the sword. This concentrates the force of the blow in a smaller location, increasing the effective power of the strike. Also, because axes have more weight at one end, they develop more centripital force, and thus also have more momentum. The blade of the axe is also usually curved which allows the force of the axe strike to be delivered at the highest point on the curve further increasing the focus of the weapon's energy. So it would seem to me that an axe strike would be more damaging than a sword strike. I think we've all swung axes and swords both. The axe hits harder, that's just the nature of the weapon.

[David R. Glier]

I would dispute the idea that the blade is the only useful part of an axe.

[Alina Boyden]

[David R. Glier]

penetrate, no. But it works wonders for smacking a fellow around enough to line up for a full-armed shot.

[Greyson Brown]

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

A two handed axe, if made for battle, is plenty fast enough to match a sword. And I'm not sure about axes, but DiGrassi writes about partisans that could "break the mail and divide the Iron." If the sword-like blade of a partisan could do it, an axe blade probably could do it as well...

[Matt G. Meekma]

[Felix Wang]

There are one handed axes and two handed axes. The two handed axe is relatively fast, and extremely powerful, and the shaft end can be used as an effective blunt weapon. Using one means you are not using a shield, however. This means you are much less well protected, particularly in a melee situation with spears that might come at you from either side, or from outside your range. In periods when even well-armoured men were not usually armoured on their forearms, lower legs, or face, there was a definite risk.

A one-handed axe allows you to carry a shield, which vastly improves your defense. However, the one-handed axe is slower to recover (and slower than a sword), and the butt-end is less useful as a weapon than with a two-handed axe.

The two kinds of axes have to be considered separately, just as arming swords and zweihanders are not the same weapon.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Hmmm. I agree with your point about the big difference between one handed and two handed axes. I have to note, though, that a two handed axe would do just fine against a shield user one on one, and probably have a considerable advantage. Of course, shields are more useful in battle, where movement is limited and the action usually flows one way. Also, shields are also quite a bit better at catching arrows and other projectiles than axes are...

As for one handed axes against mail, yeah, they must have been better than a sword, but mail is still a solid defense and probably was tough to defeat with the power of only one arm and only two feet of leverage. Even with a two handed axe I doubt it was trivial.

[Tyler Weaver]

A swordsman, unless he screwed up bigtime, would have relatively little trouble against someone with a shorter and slower axe. Even if a one-handed axe packs more of an armor-piercing wallop, it's not much of a defensive weapon and I doubt that using its haft in-close would be a winning game against the kind of nasty draw-cuts and pommel-strikes that can be laid out with a sword in close combat. There's a reason why people liked swords and hand-axes didn't come into use in preference to them (by some knightly types) until plate armor had advanced to the point that their armor-cracking abilities outweighed their disadvantages of being relatively slow and clumsy to defend yourself with.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I agree, one handed axes lack the reach and balance of a good sword.