Battle axes

[Rainmar Bielawa]

Whats the profits of using battle axe? It's reach is non comparable to polearms and many swords, it have less cutting surface than swords, it is harder to carry, wield, master than sword. It has less combat techniques (due to luck of the thrust/piercing attacks for instance . The only thing that comes in mind is that it could have double usage - to fight and to cut wood for egzample for war machines, although im not so sure if thats the case - for cutting wood medieval warriors were probably using regular woodcutter axes, either which were carried with them or taken (one way or another) from nerby village. So why use it in battle?

[Kevin Reicks]

A lot cheaper so most people could afford one and a better chance of chopping through armor. In internet chatter, the later tends to get exaggerated but if you come right down hard on top of an iron helmet at the right angle, an ax might have a better chance of going through. The short length can also be good in some cases on horseback perhaps at shorter ranges. The axe was not venerated the same way in the day people had to rely on these weapons and I am sure for good reason, but it still had it's place

[Rainmar Bielawa]

Well - if price was the case id rather use some club/hammer like weapon - its highly effective, easy to master and depending on kind, good for many types of opponents - for egzample Goedendag - if unarmored opponent took the hit from that he was basically done for, and it was also very usefull against horses and armored knights - in the same time it was very simple weapon - primitive even. But i get your point - kind of xP Not really convinced about this weapon though

[Kevin Reicks]

Well - if price was the case id rather use some club/hammer like weapon - its highly effective, easy to master and depending on kind, good for many types of opponents - for egzample Goedendag - if unarmored opponent took the hit from that he was basically done for, and it was also very usefull against horses and armored knights - in the same time it was very simple weapon - primitive even. But i get your point - kind of xP Not really convinced about this weapon though

On unarmored opponents, you definitely want a sword as it is more agile and more you can do with it and you are "done for" if you are hit with it. Also, a sword can be held by the blade and you have a club and a spear. I really don't see any big advantage of a godendag over a sword except you can arm a lot of people with it in pike formation.

[Rainmar Bielawa]

I was comparing it to battle axe - not a sword, as you just said it (sword) cost too much and not everyone could afford it.

Swords - polearms - clubs/hammers - axes <- from melee weapons id said its the correct order of usefulness ... in my opinion at least - of course it varies depending on exact type.

[Stacy Clifford]

I think the usefulness of the hand axe depends on the context in which it is used, as do so many other things. They seem to have been most popular during the era of full arm shields and with armored knights on horseback. An axe will turn a shield into a piece of junk faster than any other weapon, and can be used very effectively to hook it down or strike around behind it. Your shield arm was safe from most things if used well, but not from an axe. On horseback, dragging your opponent off his horse was a desirable outcome, and an axe makes a better hook than a hammer or a mace in most cases. An axe also has an undeniable intimidation factor, and there have always been people who just want to look really scary before the fight even starts. It may lack versatility and agility, but even a glancing blow from an axe is bad news, and you won't get many second chances after a hit from one. I don't think it was the best weapon on the battlefield either, but it had its place.

[Rainmar Bielawa]

Ahh finally - thank you for clarifying answer

[David Howard]

Howdy. This is my first post on here, so please forgive any errors that occur in my formatting.

I have used the battle ax in limited fashion, and I have found a number of advantages to using it. Primarily, it is much easier to acquire a quality ax than a quality sword, due to the quality metal being required only on the cutting surfaces, at the minimum. It would have been much easier to replace should it prove of inferior quality, much easier for a warrior to tend in the field, having a smaller edge to worry over, an easily replaceable gripping surface is the blade survives in fine enough shape to be remounted, and the wedge shape of the edge is much less prone to damage than the sword. It has primarily seen service with warriors who cannot afford a sword, or as mentioned, with warriors dealing with shields.

The battle ax deals damage as both a bladed edge, and a shaped bludgeon, by design. When the edge fails to bite, as with flesh, the bludgeoning effect would carry through protective measures, more so than a sword, due to balance and design. Even when compared to a sword of equal weight, of which most axes through history have been lighter than contemporary swords, if my understanding rings true. In possessing an edge, when used in a bludgeoning role, the edge can provide a better "bite" or contact with the target, which would better transfer the energy of the blow.

Axes also have their own trips and disarms, their own warding techniques. They can manipulate shields, weapons, and yes, they do serve a multifunctional role with camp chores. They hit HARD. You can adjust your hand up and down the haft, to achieve everything from maximum range to a blades knuckle duster. Anything more specific than that will require a given ax design versus a given armor and situation.

[Webmaster]

Redwolf, please abide by our forum rules and edit your username in your profile to your first and last name.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

It's worth noting that medieval European texts mostly use the term "battle-axe" to refer to the weapon we now know as the poleaxe (with a thrusting spike on top, two heads, and all).