I'm sure we've all read about or seen illustrations of ancient and medieval battle axes - axes shaped and formed specifically for fighting, not wood-cutting. In particular, war saw the development of the so-called "bearded axe", with the "beard" of the blade extending behind the head, reaching back along the upper haft, as illustrated below (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).
The purpose of the "beard" has been debated. Wikipedia says:
This design allows the user to grip the haft directly behind the head for planing or shaving wood and variations of this design are still in use by modern woodworkers and some foresters. The "beard" of the axe would also have been useful in battle, for example to pull a weapon or shield out of a defender's grasp.
This morning, Eaton Rapids Joe proposed another reason for the beard.
Suppose Thog and Yon go into battle and Thog uses an ax designed for cutting wood while Yon uses a much lighter ax with a thinner blade used for butchering game. All other things being equal, who will win the match-up: Brute strength or much faster speed?
Like all things, it depends.
If Thog has the presence of mind to catch the shaft of Yon's ax with his hand, then he can disarm Yon and part him out like a lobster at his leisure. If not, then Yon is more likely to administer a disabling blow more quickly and then prevail over Thog.
So how would one catch the handle of an incoming axe? One would have to catch it near the center of gravity, just below the head of the axe. Can you see where this is going?
That dainty, knifey thing projecting approximately 5" (125mm) back toward the user's hand is not intended to crack skulls or lop through clavicles or chop through the humerus. Nope. All it needs to be able to cut through is the web and bone at the base of your opponent's thumb. If he is grabbing the handle closer to your hands, the head will rotate around his hand and you will still strike his body with enough force to take him out of the fight.
Oh, and if you lop off his thumb but miss his body...your opponent now only has one functioning hand which offers you a distinct advantage.
There's more at the link.
It's an interesting theory, albeit one I haven't seen discussed by researchers into ancient and medieval weaponry. I'd love to find out whether there's any historically recorded use of a war axe in that way. Can any readers help? What do you think of Joe's theory, and do you know of any records that might confirm it?
Peter
14 comments:
The only axe-fighting manuals I know of are German judicial combat manuals. So, well, Scandinavian axe techniques from 800+AD, nope.
Best you can do is look at artwork of the periods in question. The Bayeaux Tapestry (really an embroidery) shows some use. So do various bibles and other illuminated (fancy pictures) works like the Morgan Bible (Morgan from the museum, also called the Maciejowski Bible.)
You would have to infer the action and use of war axes.
It's like all 'historical' European martial arts. Lots of inference, lots of guessing using recreations of found medieval weapons and just seeing what works and what doesn't.
From all of that, yeah, you can use the beard for cutting, hooking, slashing, I believe. I've seen SCA fighters doing that with their recreated weapons.
my dad was a bricklayer. once a long time ago, one of the "day workers" got pissed at him and pulled a knife on dad.
with his brick hammer in his left hand and trowel in his right, he told the asshole to come on. he was brighter than he looked, he left the job site instead. BTW, dad was a WW2 and Korean vet. he didn't play.
I would say it's definitely possible.
30 years ago i did medieval reenactment fighting, I fought with an axe and used it to pull down shields all the time. That doesn't mean it was done that way originally but if a kid from a small town can figure it out in 15 minutes pretty sure people who did that for a living figured it out as well.
Exile1981
When in the SCA and fighting in a melee, I'd team up with an axeman (I used a spear). He'd pull down a shield and I'd thrust, then on to the next victim. We did pretty well.
Having trained with a variety of weapons, if you can conceive of it, so have the fighters of the past. Every weapon has multiple techniques. To think there is only one or two techniques is to make an error. The shape is to emphasize a particular use or to counter another weapon. I suspect picked rather than shields. Pulling a steel embossed shield towards me strikes me as a bad idea.
The beard is there for very close quarters fighting or grappling. The grip can be loosened so the axe head can drop down to the hand. Gripping the axe right behind the beard gives good control for close in work. The toe can be thrust like a dagger at poorly armored areas of an opponent, like the face, throat, belly, or groin.
Similarly, the elongated bit can be used to slash like a knife or cleaver.
The beard also offers some protection to the hand when using the axe in this manner.
It is fast to transition to and from this method. It may be faster to do this than dropping or stowing the axe and switching to a knife or dagger. It also does not require the user to drop the axe, which may be needed later.
Is the question was it used that way, or can it be used that way?
If it can be used that way, then it probably was used that way. Because in battle, any use of any device which can be used, will be used when the goal is to defeat an enemy.
The 'rules' of engagement such as chivalry might dictate prohibition of unfair advantage. But honestly, kicking, scratching, throwing dirt into the eyes of one's opponent, and yes, using the beard in the manner proposed by ERJ will happen.
It might well be that if such use was, in fact prohibited, that may explain why little historical evidence is found of that usage. After all, who would put on record that they did that which was prohibited?
So the laws, code of conduct, social mores, or other may have officially condemned the use but would not have entirely prohibited it.
That is more speculation to add to the subject. But if I were in a fight to the death, you bet I would, conduct be damned.
Forcibly pulling an opponent's shield out of defensive position may be an advantage.
ERJ gave one example. I submit another; a heavy shield suddenly shifted may cause the opponent to become unbalanced and perhaps lose focus.
And to add, most of the existing 'Fight Books' that show 'medieval' fighting techniques are for use in judicial or other tournaments. They are equivalent to Renaissance and later fencing manuals.
There isn't a 'Way of War Fighting' manual from medieval times. We have to guess as to how various weapons were used, how armor was fitted and worn, how shields were used.
We can simulate what we think how they fought. We can play at fighting using weapons, armor and clothing. We can look at the fight books and manuscripts and try to apply that.
But, well, a tried-and-true 'street fighter' reenactor can usually clean the clocks of a 'fight book follower' because the books, like modern Eastern martial arts styles, limits one's actions and reactions.
I got to see a high-level Kendo guy get thrashed by a mid-level SCA fighter. Not because the Kendo guy didn't have serious moves, but because he wasn't used to not fighting linearly, forward and backward only.
Same with watching Olympic-level fencers get wasted by SCA fencers, because Olympic fencing focuses on strip fighting, who has way, and stupid pistol grips on extremely light wire-type 'blades.' While the SCA fighters move to the side, use heavier blades that are more realistic, use other things like palms, forearms, cloaks, shields and other weapons. More the good "Three Musketeer" movies with Michael York, which had damn good fighting in them.
Also got to fight the #2 Escrima fighter in the US while in the SCA. He could do things with a stick that were crazy good. But he got consistently thrashed because we hit harder, far harder and often at far greater distances. He thought we were crazy for wearing all the armor and hitting each other hard.
All three examples are of normal SCAdians fighting normal 'Kingdom of Trimaris' (most of Florida, the ISS, the Panama Canal and Antarctica at the time...) style of fighting.
Peter,
Off topic but if you are looking for memes and cartoons, the British Army Rumour Service has a cartoon thread:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/silly-stupid-or-just-downright-weird-cartoon-thread.301700/page-1121
Be warned the humour is sometimes ... robust as you would expect from soldiers but there are quite a variety that you may enjoy .. or not! >};o)
Phil B
ERJ responding:
Thanks for all of the comments!!!
It occurred to me after somebody posted a comment on the original post that there are at least two very different scenarios to consider. One is the movie-set of two large armies clashing on a field in long lines. The other is small-unit ambushes that might occur when a foraging party gets ambushed by locals who don't want their livestock slaughtered and their women raped. A variation of the second scenario involves a small party of men traveling together and getting mugged by brigands.
In the first scenario, there will be spears and shields employed because those are the best tools for the situation. In the second scenario, spears are to unwieldy and the party too small to use them for overlapping coverage. Shields are also likely to not be in play because they need to be able to carry the "supplies" home. Short swords and battle axes are the better choices of weapons for the foraging party.
Different horses for different courses. A weapon that can only be used one way is limiting.
My totally ignorant opinion ...
Bearded axe was developed for wood work but someone figured out fighting techniques with it.
We call them today tactical axe.
The hammer and trowel used by WW2 veteran were tactical hammer and trowel.
Hook an ankle with that ax beard and pull, see what happens...
Post a Comment