Are war axes useful at splitting shields?

[LadyTevar]

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.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Axes and Maces come in different sizes and can be used with shields; the Norsemen did it all the time, as well as using a florentine attack with sword and an axe in the offhand. The Norse 'bearded axe' was often used this way, hooking over the edge of an enemy's shield to pull it away from the body so the other weapon could strike.

[LadyTevar]

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.

Now you're mentioning the forerunners of the Scottish Targe. A smaller shield would be tied to the forearm and used to block and parry. There's another name for this kind of sheild, but I can't remember it right now

[Elheru Aran]

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.

Now you're mentioning the forerunners of the Scottish Targe. A smaller shield would be tied to the forearm and used to block and parry. There's another name for this kind of sheild, but I can't remember it right now

Buckler?

[LadyTevar]

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.

Now you're mentioning the forerunners of the Scottish Targe. A smaller shield would be tied to the forearm and used to block and parry. There's another name for this kind of sheild, but I can't remember it right now

Buckler?

Thank you El. That's it exactly.

[Shortie]

To give another random TV theory, IIRC the simplest tactic with a two-handed axe was just a continous figure of eight, switching from horizontal to vertical and back as needed.

Somewhat predictable yes, but if you're on the defence it's got to be pretty intimidating, and if you keep it under control the gaps should be manageable. I can't help but think it'd be asking to lose a foot against enemies with a longer reach though.

[Falkenhayn]

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.

I posted on the ARMA forums asking for ax and mace manuals three months ago. No responses. Your best bet would be to find a digital image of the Bayeux Tapestry.

And perhaps what is mistaken for whirling by modern scholars is the Huscarle's equivalent of the Nebenhut,

[Cyborg Stan]

This thread? There's two responses.

[Zornhau]

Axes and Maces come in different sizes and can be used with shields; the Norsemen did it all the time, as well as using a florentine attack with sword and an axe in the offhand. The Norse 'bearded axe' was often used this way, hooking over the edge of an enemy's shield to pull it away from the body so the other weapon could strike.

Do you have any primary source evidence for this?

It's certainly a technique which works well in reenactment etc, but I suspect that the effectiveness is an artifact of the safety rules.

[Zornhau]

To give another random TV theory, IIRC the simplest tactic with a two-handed axe was just a continous figure of eight, switching from horizontal to vertical and back as needed.

Somewhat predictable yes, but if you're on the defence it's got to be pretty intimidating, and if you keep it under control the gaps should be manageable. I can't help but think it'd be asking to lose a foot against enemies with a longer reach though.

I think this was discussed upthread. Whirling techniques like that are only intimidating to the untrained.

Worth considering: the whirling technique must take the axe through some fairly disadvantagous guards, while making it impossible to achieve the kind of split-second timing required, e.g., to take down a Norman warhorse.

[Elfdart]

To give another random TV theory, IIRC the simplest tactic with a two-handed axe was just a continous figure of eight, switching from horizontal to vertical and back as needed.

It's only simple if you have arms like Popeye and the stamina of a quarterhorse.

Somewhat predictable yes, but if you're on the defence it's got to be pretty intimidating, and if you keep it under control the gaps should be manageable. I can't help but think it'd be asking to lose a foot against enemies with a longer reach though.

What intimidates defenders is a charge. The deeply ingrained mammalian "fight-or-flight" response kicks in at that point. Since it's entirely against human nature to stand your ground when someone comes to plant an axe in your noggin, most make a run for it unless they have been trained to NOT do what comes naturally. Scandinavians with axes weren't the only ones to rout their enemies this way. From the Berserkers to the Highland charge to the Rebel Yell to the Bansai charge, it's a time-proven technique unless the defender has superior discipline and firepower. Otherwise the rout is on.

Twirling an axe like a majorette's baton is pure wank.

[wolveraptor]

Weren't quarter horses bred to run quickly for short distances? Wouldn't that be relatively low stamina for a horse?[/nitpick]

[Elfdart]

A mile and a quarter at high speed -@40mph. Meaning a minute and a half (give or take a few seconds, my math sucks). I'd like to see someone twirl a Danish War Axe for more than a minute. If his opponents don't make a run for it, they won't have to count twirls as Zornhau describes. They can just wait for his arms to go limp and kill him as his limbs are too weak and exhausted to defend himself. It would be like Ali's rope-a-dope on Foreman, only with more blood.

[Falkenhayn]

Ghetto Edit.

Do you have any primary source evidence for this?

Why is it that only primary source documents will satisfy your burden of proof? If the Dutch government will sell 80,000 fourty tons of old West India Co. records as scrap paper, what makes you think that said documents exist in the modern day, assuming they were penned at all? Are you sitting on top of a copy of "Sweyn Redbeard's Instruction in the Noble Art of the Danish War Axe" and not telling us?

[Zornhau]

Ghetto Edit.

Do you have any primary source evidence for this?

Why is it that only primary source documents will satisfy your burden of proof? ....[snip].... Are you sitting on top of a copy of "Sweyn Redbeard's Instruction in the Noble Art of the Danish War Axe" and not telling us?

If I was sitting on Sweyn Redbeard's Instruction in the Noble Art of the Danish War Axe, you'd ####ing hear about it! I would slay for a pre 1200s manual.

Primary sources are required because they exist, give quite specific combat descriptions, but - as far I as know - mention niether of these two techniques.

What have buckets of Icelandic sagas. All the fight scenes I've gone over imply very short exchanges, often finished with a single well-timed cut or thrust.

Sometimes the techniques are quite advanced and specifically described. For example, in Njal's saga, the hero (IIRC) deflects an axe using a cloak wrapped around his arm.

Even so, I've yet to come across axe whirling, or offhand bearded axe. If you can find a quote from a saga containing these, then I'll be ecstatic.

Otherwise, based on my own direct experience of reenactment and WMA, I would be very doubtful about the authenticity of such techniques.

The axe whirling in particular is most obviously pish:
-Exposes hands by holding them in an advanced position
-Ax passes through disadvantageous guards
-Entails a full-on stance, making it hard to pivot forward with a cut, thus reducing effectiveness*
-Interfers with mobility (battlefields aren't flat, empty, or static)
-Hinders timing
-Exhausting
-Requires extra space
-Possibly error-prone (imagine doing it with cold or wet fingers when scared?)
-Risk of taking out a mate by accident

*A clincher. Great blows entail stepping with a cut. All the whirl in the world is no substitute for 300lbs of armoured huscarl.

German longsword alone has several core techniques one would use with confidence against the whirl: cutting off, over running, following after, hand cutting, plus good old Krumphau.

[Falkenhayn]

German longsword alone has several core techniques one would use with confidence against the whirl: cutting off, over running, following after, hand cutting, plus good old Krumphau.

Well then obviously I concede on that account. Can you reproduce the relevant quotes from these Sagas here so as to educate everyone else?

Also, I'm a novice student of the German Longsword myself. Which is why I posited that the "whirling" technique may be a mis-representation of a viking Nebenhut.

[Zornhau]

Um. That would require more typing or scanning than I could be bothered with! Njal's Saga has some good fights, and is in Penguin translation. Try that.

There's also Grettir the Strong, which is online. I may take the time to analyse some of the fights on my LJ.

I picked up on the German LS reference, and concur with your Nebenhut theory. I'd be very keen to keep a daneaxe back and ready.

I'm curious about you train with - please drop me an email on zornhau@gmail.com.

[Elheru Aran]

Zornhau--

A question:
Could you find these sagas and fechtbuchs on Project Gutenberg? It sounds like the kind of place that would have such things in e-book format...

[Zornhau]

The fechtbuks are available online in a variety of places, e.g. http://www.schielhau.org/ Alas, none of them cover daneaxe, though there is some material on poleaxe - a very different weapon.

The sagas - I only managed to find Grettir the Strong on Gutenberg. Suggest you google variations on "Icelandic Saga Translation". However, the best ones are easily available in Penguin Classics. They also tend to turn up 2nd hand in university towns.