Are war axes useful at splitting shields?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-14 05:59am

I don't recall where I read it originally, but somehow the idea that axes as used in the middle ages in warfare were intended to split the enemies shield. I can see how this would work, but what's the real reason axes were used?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-14 06:14am

Duh. Chopping wood and criminal necks.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2006-02-14 06:19am

1) Cheaper than swords. Norse warriors typicaly went into battle with whatever armour they could muster, a spear, and an axe or sword depending on how wealthy they were.

2) Hard hitting, whether you connect with shield, armour, or flesh.

3) Shields could get pretty badly chewed up in battle under ordinary circumstances. Taking several powerful axe blows is only going to accelerate that process.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2006-02-14 06:22am

Imperial Overlord wrote:3) Shields could get pretty badly chewed up in battle under ordinary circumstances. Taking several powerful axe blows is only going to accelerate that process.

That was often half the point though - get your enemy's blade stuck in your shield and you've got an opening.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-14 06:24am

>Cheaper than swords.
King Stephen used one at the Siege of Winchester. Also, King Harold's huscarls (probably) carried big two handed axes at Hastings.

So, though poor warriors might carry an axe because they could not afford a sword, an axe was also a weapon of choice.

The Bayeux Tapestry has some nice scenes where a huscarl has felled an oncoming warhorse with a single blow to the head, much to the Norman rider's discomfort.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-02-14 06:25am

Well I imagine shields were edged with metal, to mitigate the effect of chopping motions, but striking the wood in the centre with an axe would be more effective... I guess :S

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2006-02-14 06:28am

Zornhau wrote:>Cheaper than swords.
King Stephen used one at the Siege of Winchester. Also, King Harold's huscarls (probably) carried big two handed axes at Hastings.

So, though poor warriors might carry an axe because they could not afford a sword, an axe was also a weapon of choice.

The Bayeux Tapestry has some nice scenes where a huscarl has felled an oncoming warhorse with a single blow to the head, much to the Norman rider's discomfort.

Absolutely true. Swords were a status item, so if you could afford one you often used one, but personal taste also factors into it. Richard the Lionheart also liked axes, IIRC.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-02-14 06:49am

It's probably more due to the fact that the force of an axe's impact is all concentrated into a very short edge, so it's good for splitting just about anything, not just shields.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-02-14 06:50am

Axes where not used to split shields.

Axes are effective in battle just because of the same reasons they are effective as tools. It's a high impact on a small surface. Thus much, much better than a sword against armored opponents. It was also relatively easy and cost effective to produce. Plus almost anyone knew how to use an axe while getting skilled with a sword took training.

Most lords before christianity would have use different weapons against different opponents. Against mostly unarmored opponents a sword is very effective since it rarely gets stuck in a downed opponent. Against armored opponents you'd use axe or mace.

When christianity converted europe the sword became the weapon of choice for religious reasons not for its effectiveness.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-14 07:08am

On the contrary - judging from original sources - a sword is fine against mailed opponents and enables you to use a shield. A two handed axe requires greater confidence since it's harder to use defensively.

However, I take your point about symbolism. A pity effigies don't show what knights really carried!

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-14 05:06pm

Why can't you use a mace or axe with a shield?

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-02-14 05:16pm

wolveraptor wrote:Why can't you use a mace or axe with a shield?

To put it simply, both weapons are very front heavy (i.e. most of the weapon's weight was concentrated in the head,) requiring two hands to use in a controllable fashion.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-14 05:21pm

Couldn't they've used lighter ones weighing about as much as a sword except weighted in the front? I'm sure I've seen some images of Viking soldiers with axe-shield combos.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-02-14 05:40pm

wolveraptor wrote:Couldn't they've used lighter ones weighing about as much as a sword except weighted in the front? I'm sure I've seen some images of Viking soldiers with axe-shield combos.

Well, yes, you could. Though you tended to lose some effectiveness going that route. You tend to have to really commit yourself to an axe-attack, since all the weapon's offensive capability is focused into the small area of the axe-head (so such a weapon requires a swinging, chopping motion that called upon the soldier to really put his effort into it.) On the other hand, most of the blade of a sword was sharp, and could be used in an attack, allowing a soldier to hide behind a shield and engage in cut-and-thrust attacks.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-02-14 05:48pm

There's a great show, The Weapons That Made Britain. They showed what happened when the Danish War Axe was used against shields. War Axe + Shield = a nice bundle of kindling. Shields with a layer of rawhide were impervious to every other weapon, including the yew longbow at point blank range. The War Axe obliterated the shield and would have almost certainly killed any man standing behind it.

Were axes used specifically to smash shields? Possibly, but one good blow from a large axe would crush the shield and the man holding it at the same time anyway.

I suspect that axe-men like the Huscarls and Vikings used shields and carried their axes in one hand when closing with the enemy to defend against arrows and thrown weapons, then dropped the shields to use their axes with as much force as possible. This might explain why they often routed superior forces. If you're being charged by a man wielding a weapon that renders your only defense useless, it's time to get out of Dodge.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-14 06:04pm

Man, I can see why teh Axe would be 1337zorrz. It's just about impossible to block, and there's no room to dodge when you're in formation.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-02-14 06:09pm

What would stop someone from strapping their shield to the arm, so they could switch between the shield and axe without having to completely drop the shield? It would also provide at least some protection during battle (although it would be hard to balance and thus would be like to spin around). It also might restrict the range of motion of the arm or hand. Nevertheless, such a tactic may have had some advantages.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2006-02-14 06:59pm

TheBlackCat wrote:What would stop someone from strapping their shield to the arm, so they could switch between the shield and axe without having to completely drop the shield? It would also provide at least some protection during battle (although it would be hard to balance and thus would be like to spin around). It also might restrict the range of motion of the arm or hand. Nevertheless, such a tactic may have had some advantages.

Saxon and Viking practice was to grip the axe in both hands and as your target approached, you whirled around in almost a full circle then landed the blow. The shield design of the time had the grip directly under the central boss as the only means of holding your shield. So while your idea makes sense, given the methods and the tech it wouldn't have been applied.

Linden wood contracts when split. For this reason, Germanic tribes made their shields from it and left them unrimmed so you could catch a blade.

Elfdart wrote:I suspect that axe-men like the Huscarls and Vikings used shields and carried their axes in one hand when closing with the enemy to defend against arrows and thrown weapons, then dropped the shields to use their axes with as much force as possible. This might explain why they often routed superior forces. If you're being charged by a man wielding a weapon that renders your only defense useless, it's time to get out of Dodge.

In addition to your point, the Vikings and Saxons were a shield-wall based army. Viking swords have incredibly small crosses because you weren't expected to parry much with it, protected by your own and your neighbors shields.

Now, introduce a number of picked men with shield breaking war axes and you have a ready way to crack your opponents shield wall so yours can exploit the openings. The danger there however, was that the shield wall would grapple with your axeman and pull him inside for rear rankers to finish off.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-02-14 07:00pm

TheBlackCat wrote:What would stop someone from strapping their shield to the arm, so they could switch between the shield and axe without having to completely drop the shield? It would also provide at least some protection during battle (although it would be hard to balance and thus would be like to spin around). It also might restrict the range of motion of the arm or hand. Nevertheless, such a tactic may have had some advantages.

Unless it's a really small shield, it'd still get in the way of maneuverability. If it's a large heavy ax, that's kind of important.

the wicked prince · Post by **the wicked prince** » 2006-02-15 12:18am

Song dynasty deployed heavy axe units to smash shields

As for relatively lightweight maces, there is a kind of mace that is pretty much a blunt sword or a steel rod

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2006-02-15 02:18am

It depends really on the period, in the 1090s axes turned shields to kindling, fast forward to Richards (the lionheart's) day and knights shields had a metal layer to stop lances that was equally good at stopping axes. The onehanded axe used by knights was actually more effective than the earlier two handers. The one handed was a faster weapon even if it didn't hit as hard. If you can find Terri Jones's Crusades vids it shows a pair of french reenactors dueling with battleaxes and shields at half speed the damn things never stop moving.

Also about viking axes, the vikings did have an one-handed axe that had an interesting use. The so called 'bearded axe'

While there are two-handed versions the one-handed saw more use as an off hand weapon. The point was to hook the 'beard' of the axe on an enemies weapon or shield and pull hard to unbalance them, then go for the kill with the other hand.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-15 06:44am

wolveraptor wrote:Why can't you use a mace or axe with a shield?

You can, just not a two-handed axe as per my original comment.

One-handed maces and axes trade reach and agility for damage. However, in the mail era, a sword will do the job in more circumstances, hence it's predominance in chivalric hands.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-15 07:00am

Can anybody cite primary sources, rather than reenactors experimenting, and speculation based on pretty pictures and the AD&D Players handbook?

Most reenactors, and most experimental achaeologists don't know how to cut. Consequently, the techniques that work for them involve whirling the weapon rather than using proper body mechanics - think of that Briuce Lee punch where he barely moves his fist.

A well timed blow from a two-handed axe with the body behind it's going to make a single-handed axe look like a toy - that's why people carried the poleax for plate-on-plate footcombat.

Most reenactors "fight" with very limiting rules, usually making head, and elbows and knees down off-target, and often banning thrusts. They also usually train using very odd systems with little emphasis on timing and distance. This creates all sorts of odd artifacts.

I've seen the whole axe-whirling trick, and to be frank, it only works if the other chap doesn't count your swings then stab you!

Bearded axe as offhand weapon? It's hard to fight people armed this way, but only if you're not allowed to cut off their hands or stab them in the eye! Never trade a shield for a main gauche before 1500.

My impression from Viking sagas is that they went in for well timed attacks, not all this sub-Water Margin flourishing. I've never come across axe as main gauche either.

However, I would be ecstatic if anybody has original sources contradicting any of this.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-15 07:52am

OK. The best I could find on the web was "Grettir the Strong" on project Gutenburg. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/grttr10.txt

Here's what a sword can do to a Viking shield in the right circumstances:

The viking dashed forward, reached Onund and hewed at him
with his sword, which cut right through his shield and into the
log beneath his leg, where it remained fixed

And...

Then he turned upon Gunnar himself and
struck a blow that severed his shield right across below the
handle, and the sword struck his leg below the knee

If a really good sword stroke will do it, I would think two-handed axe would have a reasonable chance of routinely wrecking a shield.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-02-15 10:09am

Might be useful?
http://forums.swordforum.com/
http://www.thearma.org/

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Are war axes useful at splitting shields?

Are war axes useful at splitting shields?

AN ANSWER OF SORTS: Well a sword can do it

Re: AN ANSWER OF SORTS: Well a sword can do it