Why Viking Axes Are Worse Weapons Than Viking Swords In 1 Important Way - ThegnThrand Response
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- One important way that axes are worse weapons than swords, with a response cutting challenge from ThegnThrand ( • Thrand's Viking Lockdo... ) to Matt Easton (Schola Gladiatoria).
Extra videos on Patreon:
/ scholagladiatoria
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
Neighbours:
"He's out there again."
"Mmm?"
"Axes this time..."
"Bottles again?"
"Yers."
"Try offering him some of our woodpile. He might as well be useful..."
His shopping runs must be interesting, a trolley jam packed with milk bottles and multipacks of fizzy drinks:
"30 litres of milk Mr Easton? You must really like that stuff"
"Why yes I do Tracey, plus the bottles are useful"
"Probly be cheaper if you just bought a cow"
"I'm not sure the RSCPA would like that Tracey..."
I read this as a Month Python skit!
Cows don't cut cleanly with any axe.
Again: What about the Killer Rabbit & The Holy Hand grenade!
That's why the Viking age ended: the Europeans started wearing plastic bottles, and the Viking axes could no longer cut through it...
Because nothing is more dangerous than a plastic bottle that is only wounded! 🤪
Yes, the moment the bottles got wider than the axes, the Vikings were screwed.
I strongly disagree. The viking sword is obviously designed to cut the plastic bottles that they could no longer handle with an axe.
No, the Vikings had very real horns on their helmet that were used as spikes, so they could charge in like a bull and pierce through the bottles!
And then the French hussars invented the saber, champagne and your sister as the opponent
This is Thrand, Thanks Matt for such an spectacular video well thought out with excellent information and completing the challenge like a trooper! I might add I very much enjoyed this one sharing your response :D
My pleasure!
@Redneck Royalty Obviously terrain, ambushing, tactics, etc. is for the larger part the decisive component of a battle, but that's not the discussion at hand. weapons in individual cases are very important and we're comparing the difference between these two blades and talking about their uses in a combat situation.
I'm currently considering making a "Why forks are better than axes" video just to see if Matt makes a super-detailed response-video to it.
Forks are much better in _extremely_ close combat, for example, in a telephone booth!
@@MrRobbi373 Half-swording would still be better than fork-stabbing in a telephone booth.
Pitchfork?
@@Vlad_Tepes_III You're forgetting all about historical context. Forks were designed to be duel-weilded with knives. And half-swording basically converts your sword into a knife anyway. So the fork is still a superior weapon.
@@Vlad_Tepes_III Have you ever tried to get your sword out of your scabbard in such a small space, especially with another person in the way?
12:08 Matt Easton's signature teleportation technique.
He teleports behind his enemies
@@spyrofrost9158 "Nuthin' personal, kid"
He has a cloaking device! lmao!
@@spyrofrost9158 That's where "the butt" is.
It's a rogue breaking stealth
"The axe or spear you can afford is more useful than the sword you cannot..."?
That is a very good point
@@thorshammer8033 The 2A version is the weapon you carry is 100% more effective than the weapon next the door at home.
Ya, axes were economic and easier to learn. That and most non-soldiers were familiar with it.
@@shawn6860 No the easier to learn thing is a myth. Matt's done other videos about that. They were certainly cheaper though, especially in this period. (Bear in mind the big, two-handed Dane axe wouldn't be cheap though.)
@@Robert399 Actually that point on the dane axe not being cheap is something I'm super curious about.
Like why was it that for such a long period of time, over such a diverse group of cultures - were people with access to choice in armament choosing the dane axe? Was it just a tradition of the house guard that lingered for a while? Or was there a practical reason for it?
In the olden days, knightly men did not bathe like the commoners. They instead filled plastic bottles with water and struck at them for practice, showering themselves with the liquid. Thus did they both wash themselves and practice getting blood splattered upon their person as would happen in knightly combat.
Whilst cleansing their knightly weapons of the blood of the foes.
As for told in the Easton Tapestry we have just watched
I thought they filled commoners with ale, struck at them for practice, and showered in whatever came out. I stand corrected.
They weren't "plastic bottles". That's just a mistranslation. They were aktuerly "elastic bladders." The substitution of water for urine is considered one of the great advances in hygiene
"I'll put the sword down now"
Ah, classic English honesty, I see
English honesty is an oxymoron.
Oi mate you got a loicense fer that sword?
Perfidy.
"I got a bit wet there"
T'is what the maiden said
Three danish vikings crossed the sea ferdush, ferdush -
Three danish vikings crossed the sea ferdush, ferdush -
Three danish vikings crossed the sea to bring the englishmen to their knees
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
They crossed the sea in a dragonship ferdush, ferdush -
They crossed the sea in a dragonship ferdush, ferdush -
They crossed the sea in a dragonship bringing swords and shields and axes and whips
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
They came upon the english shore ferdush, ferdush -
They came upon the english shore ferdush, ferdush -
They came upon the english shore to pillage and rape til there was no more
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
And then they met an english maid ferdush, ferdush -
And then they met an english maid ferdush, ferdush -
And then they met an english maid they took her to the dragonship
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
They took her to the dragonship ferdush, ferdush -
They took her to the dragonship ferdush, ferdush -
They took her to the dragonship where they taught her how to enjoy the whip
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
Now english maids have left their homes ferdush, ferdush -
Now english maids have left their homes ferdush, ferdush -
Now english maids have left their homes to go were danish vikings grow/roam
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
3 danish vikings went to hell ferdush, ferdush -
3 danish vikings went to hell ferdush, ferdush -
3 danish vikings went to hell to fuck the devil and his wife as well
hey ho strike and blow strike and blow ferdush
"T'is all about tip speed, fair maiden"
Replied the knight.
Huzzah
"Having a shorter shaft means less acceleration at the tip."
Thus quoth ye damsel
At the end of the day, if someone hit me in the arm with an ax I don’t think I’d be worrying about if he lopped it off cleanly or merely left it hanging by a bit of sinew. Either way I’d be flopping on the ground screaming for my mommy.
I feel like the clean cut is going to hurt less, but only because you're not yanking on the wound.
Though that's fucking semantics, I'll also be howling
@@NM-wd7kx I would wager that the phantom pain would probably make it at least as painful.
@@NM-wd7kx Really? What felines you both are. Know what *'The Black Knight'* would say;? *'T'is but a scratch!'*
@@vladdrakul7851 "Ive had worse"
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz What are you going to do to me now then?? Bleed on me??!
Oh man, what a beautiful garden. I know what the video is about but I loved those bird songs and the green tones.
Thanks!
Orkan Özen I grew up in Michigan, which is green & wooded. 15 years ago I moved to southern Arizona, which is about as far from green & wooded as one can get.
Seeing the moss & leaves, along with the birdsong, sent me into a paroxysm of deep nostalgia about sylvan glades & long walks under an emerald canopy...
It’s 101degrees here...😔
Does "Garden" have a different or alternative meaning, in the UK?
@@susanmaggiora4800 I grew up in southern Arizona and I'm sorry you have to live there:)
I was searching through the comments for someone that felt the same way I did. So beautiful it's distracting...
I also love how natural, almost "abandoned" it looks. Like a private lot of forest.
If one weapon was objectively "better" than the other, they wouldn't have existed and been used side-by-side for centuries. I think this sort of demonstration is entertaining and instructive in understanding why a warrior might have chosen one over the other for a particular task. And just like today, a preference for one weapon over another may have little or nothing to do with objective factors and simply come down to "I fight better with this one."
That's very true. It is also true however that swords were considerably more popular sidearms than axes across the medieval/renaissance/early modern eras, for those who had the choice.
@@ivanharlokin after all, you can't wear an axe so easily, and just as Matt said, it's overall, a worse weapon than a sword. Yes, it's got impact, and yes, it does not cut better nor worse than a sword, but if I were to pit a one-handed battleaxe against a one-handed sword, then I'll have to give it to the sword. It simply has so much versatility compared to the axe, and could even substitue for a two-handed warhammer (mordhau). The axe on the other hand, greatly diminishes in utility when gripped on the striking end, and is quite slow to accelerate and maneuver with.
Not to mention, how tiny the edge is! Look at it, so cute and puny.
something to look at is the multi use of an axe. The sword for the commoner would be impractical to have made since its only used for battle whereas the axe can be use around the homestead as well as in battle. A more useful tool that would be commonplace for people of lower class to take into battle because of readiness of use as well as you will be highly proficient in its use.
Actually, you're completely wrong. There can be better or worse among weapons, because quality and usefulness are not the only factors that predicate a weapon's use. Cost, is one thing, the technology needed for smithing or manufacture is another. An objectively inferior weapon can still stick around because it's cheaper, easier to make, maybe fashionable too.
Also, if you do not have access to a better weapon, you will use whatever you can. Which is where wood chopping axes often come in. You can't afford a sword, or any other decent weapon, so you take your trusty old axe to back you up when you can't use your spear. It's not as good, but beggars can't be choosers, and you use what you can.
@@Askorti That's part of the point I'm making. An M-16 is "objectively better" than a WWI-era bolt-action Mauser but if you have the Mauser and can't get the M-16, that difference is irrelevant. However, it is clear that among professional warriors the sword didn't ever entirely supplant the axe which argues that for some purposes it was "better."
It's a pleasure to see how respectful everyone who does HEMA on TH-cam is. They have differences of opinion but they deal with it with respect.
I would imagine one of the biggest advantages of an axe is that it's cheaper than a sword.
Yes, having an axe in a fight is definetly better than have no weapon at all. A feasible axe blade could have likely been made from lesser grade iron and probably every village blacksmith have hard needed skills to made a one. Swords are different things. Steel must be hard to maintain the edge but not brittle.
Aye, Ive heard some people say that the main reason one would chose a sword over an axe is convenience of carrying it. Of course thats not the only factor but Im sure people enjoyed their conveniences just as much then as they do now.
Yeah, I'd much rather pass helmets, shields and axes/spears out to five buddies than fight on my own with a beautiful sword.
Often Axes and Spears were more common especially among the Vikings themselves simply because they were much cheaper to make
That makes sense since you wouldn't have to temper a shorter blade as finely as a long one. Theres a bit more to consider with longer blades .
I love that little "tingggg" every time you hit the head of the Dane axe.
12:30 _viking warrior invading britain and killing local water bottles, oil on canvas, 2020 colorized_
#BwahhHahhHahhHahhHahh
Colorized
Maaaa crazy man is cutting bottles again and speaking to himself in the garden
There are no humans to see or hear into my garden :-)
@@scholagladiatoria good lord, Matt, what have you done to your neighbors......?
;)
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz One day he noticed there are no bottles left to cut, so he decided to try cutting flesh.
@@scholagladiatoria I do not think you understand how TH-cam works. ;-)
Last time I was this early the Anglo Saxons hadn't invaded Great Britain yet
Hahaha, good one made me chuckle, cheers to you!
@Cure4Living And the friisians!
@Cure4Living I must say, you hit the nail on the coffin with that one, good sir! You're pedantic tendencies have given me knowledge and a greater understanding of the history of the English people. So to that I say, papa bless
Its always good to have a couple extra inches to play with.
Yo!
My wife: "I needed more cleaving power."
Me: "My tip speed, though!"
Axes have one major advantage: they're cheap. They suck against bottle tests, but if you go to battle and you are a commoner, you can probably afford an axe, but not a sword.
Yes, economy of scale, there is a reason after-all why the North Men raided ... they wanted loot because they were poor. Also good for arming a peasant militia if you have a limited supply of metal. Furthermore it does not require as large a sheath and can be carried easier. Maybe the modern analogy of pistol vs rifle is fitting here.
And axes can penetrate better through helmets ... best of all: the killer's axe ... you can see at Amazon... 💪🏻👍🏻
@@ulrichtopfer6776 Even if you don't penetrate the helmet, the imense blunt force is sure to knock you out cold
@@muffy469 not against a pretty good strong thick armour and in a fight in a crowd the sword is to big - a killer's axe you can also use with both hands to put more strength behind defense and attack, you can defend and attack in nearby the same time, hit, strike and hook with both sides - I often practise the Bo, Hanbo, Escrima and Arnis - but everyone has his preferences that go best with his special physics 😉 - I'm about 200 pounds, not the fastest, but work / fight with big power against the most vulnerable parts of my opponent, with calm and concentration, passing the elements of earth, water, fire and wind to the element KU of emptiness (SunTsu's Art of War, Musashi's Gorin-No-Sho, Hayes' NinJutsu) - okay, you can do this also with 1-2 swords 😉😂👍🏻
@@FirstDagger youre saying an axe can be carried easier?
"I got a bit wet there"
-----Matt Easton, 2020
Oh I think we all did with him ;)
When he hit the water bottle with the Daneaxe.... what a ring! Quiet but beautiful.
Viking # 1 - (floors enemy with an ax hit to the head)
Viking # 2 - "Doesn't count. It wasn't a clean cut."
13:32 When a wench witnesses your deft strokes with your tomahawk
Your microphone always makes me think your sweater is on inside out and backwards....
Dane axe has a nice ring to her...
Hahaha, can't unsee it
I'd really like to hear Matt, credit BYC...and then begin the bottle challenges...I think he'd soon learn to stop cutting at chest height for the initial cut & the height lower =)
One aspect us modern peoples forget is the training and conditioning from utility. The ax, much like the kukri and enep, was also a tool which would have been used on a daily basis. The ax a Viking brought into battle may or may not have been the same ax he used to butcher a stag, chop wood or hue a post and beam but he would have been developing muscle memory, strength, efficiency and accuracy nearly every day welding an ax of some kind. Don't underestimate that kind of ubiquitous training on fighting skills. The ax would have become a natural extension of his arm.
These men at that period were very high skillled and knew exactly what they could do with their axe!Their shield was the primairy weapon to block the enemies strike and than with one blow with the axe to take he or she down.Experts tested this out several times because they wanted to know how they really could win in man to man fight!And of course the axe was cheaper and easier to produce.
@@lukaslangenberg1693 Exactly. They would have been at least as, if not more so, proficient with an axe as any swordsman of the day.
The guy who demonstrated the both axes(with all respect)with plastic bottles,really doesn't know what he's talking about!Even the mighty knights of the holy wars in the dark ages uses axes as a common weapon!...I really believe the battle-axe was for a very long time a reliable and very accurate weapon.I don't like people who is trying to convince watchers in the wrong directions!
@@lukaslangenberg1693 One mistake I think many people make, as demonstrated in this video, is the axe is not particularly a finesse weapon; for the most part it's a first hit - first kill weapon. You don't go into a fight to try and accurately hit the weak spots, you go in swinging with a lot of concentrated power in that forward heavy blade usually in close quarters where you wouldn't have the space to maneuver. And it can hook, which might be a very nice feature when facing shields.
Tomahawk with knife were very commonly used for close quarter fighting in the American colonies and on ship, now a lost fighting art.
The real question is: Which would perform better in a zombie apocalypse? I'm leaning toward the axe.
It looked to me that the tearing occurred at about the point when the shaft would have started to pass through.
Are you aware of what you just said?
@@jamestipton7872 Yes
@@jamestipton7872 new to the channel eh?
i want to add one, not really looked up disadventage of using an axe: axe handle can fell out of hand. This may sound like not as big of a problem, but if you would do like 200 swings (and you can do as much in few minutes), your hands will get sweaty, tired, and with smooth axe handle that has no pommel or pommel like thing, it is possible to lose your axe while swinging it around. Viking era swords have very tight handles that can be gripped for even an hour and still do not move a bit
I have covered this issue in past videos, but yes it is another (of the many!) points :-)
And axes can have flared handles which provide sufficient grip, especially if attached via the wedge method, not to mention axes can have substantially more elaborate handle designs as we see in later designs. So sure, comparing a simple axe handle to an elaborate sword grip, the elaborate grip will likely be more secure, but you aren't really comparing like to like then.
@@KageRyuu6 Even today most axes for wood working have handles with flares so of course the vikings would have had that. They would also have whittled the handle to know where the head was pointed by the feel of the haft in their hands. Just like we do today.
You could always carve a grip pattern into the handle of the axe, or you can wrap it with leather.
Great point. Swing a hanmer for 5 minutes and besides the sweating your arm is gassed. A sword swings easier.
WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT MATT? -> 12:07
That was Matt coming out of stealth
The Force is strong with this one!
Damn I bet Dane Axes(and its successors, Pole Axes, later on) and Halberds and similar polearms with an axe head(and a spear tip, depending on the weapon) would have been cleaving guys arms and heads off with a single blow(if it struck an unarmored part of the enemy) in battle. Or Knocking them out cold even if it struck someone in the helmet and had the blade deflected, considering the force it hits with...it might even break bones THROUGH mail with just the concentration of force and the leverage of the two handed dane axe striking someones armored(in mail) arm, or ribs, for example.
And the one handed axes seem really great too, just not nearly as great as the 2 handed war axes.
The period sources describe exactly that. Heck with head hits you could break their neck even if a helmet prevented brain damage. Tilting helmets by 15th century actually had aspects akin to modern NASCAR protection in keeping the neck fixed because a fall at speed off a horse could break your neck even if your head was fine and they noticed it much like NASCAR has learned in wrecks over the years.
Axe: Cheaply made compared to a standard sword materials wise, doesn't require AS MUCH skill as a properly wielded sword.
Sword: Cut AND Thrust...when properly trained more deadly in a formation.
The Axe has a romantic reputation, better suited to non formation tactics as it requires SPACE to wield effectively since every thing is either hacking up and down or swinging side to side. Why fearsome? It's intimidation value from the Saxons and Viking Raiders who were demonized by English monk writers. I mean who wouldnt be terrified by a fur clad screaming man with a long axe or shield and axe?
The sword is more versatile whether in single combat or in formation combat, it requires discipline. The Romans could cheaply produce the short blades they used because they were perfect for close formation tactics that potentially nullified wilder swinging tactics in a pitched battle and were extremely well trained. But, the longer blades were probably more expensive to make, not everyone gets them, not everyone trains with them. Longer blades were far more suited for cavalry and not the mud and blood of foot slogging combat.
The spear relevant for anti cavalry tactics as well as engaging an enemy to keep them in place until flanking could be obtained. Cheaply made, could arm untrained "soldiers" and effective for defensive tactics. Individually each had their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately tactics and leadership on the battlefield is what wins the day.
« Fur clad » sure, whatever
Aren't you missing a massive advantage of the sword over an axe... the pointing bit. With a shield and a closer range a sword is can be a very short spear for all intents and purposes.
I have covered all the general points in previous videos. This video is just about 1 specific point, as mentioned in the title :-)
Thx enjoyed the presentation. DANE-AXE 'SLIDING' TECHNIQUE; One pt I wanted to highlight is the importance of SLIDING the top/leading hand down the haft of the weapon when striking; the technique pertaining to the Dane Axe is crucial for additional momentum, better alignment, added reach and variation of line/distance of cut motion (making it harder to read for the opponent).
I have to say that, for all my decades in the fields of history and sword use, it had never occurred to me just *why* weapons like Bearded Axes came about. Indeed, I have on occasion caught myself thinking that extending the blade length on an axe was a bad thing as it spread the impact energy out :O. To hear it so simply explained in terms of the ability to lay the edge on a mobile target was a revelation!
I once got to see candle cutting with a rapier. Also bottle and can cutting with a whip. People underestimate the power of speed.
Agreed... The only thing you want traveling towards you at the speed of sound is sound :D
@@ricardobimblesticks1489 this is a quote i want to see in a movie or book somewhere, that is gold
Candles, bottles, and cans are not difficult to cut in any way.
If you had said "more edge to play with" even one more time I would have sawed my neck open with a nail file
Axe was really useful for pulling a shield and give an opening for a thrust from a swordman or a lance.
I once considered getting into historical weaponry but, try as I might, I just wasn't able to maintain the tea consumption required to stockpile the required milk bottles.
That end strike with the two handed axe so so damn gratifying. Fuck yes.
An interesting study, one of the failures that comes to mind is the modern 'tactical' tomahawk is, it becoming stuck in a skull or ribcage of a subject. In that vein what of the issue of a knife getting stuck in a subject is it real, could you examine that?
WOW! I was not expecting that second cut to work at all.
Hail Matt! Nice intro and great video! Speaking of axes having more impact power than swords, I would love to see tests with side by side comparisons of ax blows, hammer blows, and "murder strokes" from sword cross-guards and pommels. My guess is the swords will by nature of only having a thin blade to grip onto, be less effective even though the weight of the striking force is now at the far end just like the ax and hammer. Still much better impact than striking hard surfaces with the blade alone. Always been curious how effective reversing a sword to hit like a hammer is to the real thing and how it compares to axes on resistant targets! Especially since "murder strokes" are shown in the historical manuals.
I also theorize a stiffer blade should behave more effectively as a handle for murder strokes, with less flex on impact and so more force transferred to the target. Flexible blades should in theory lose more force, but how much, if at all I'm curious to see. It would be great to see tests done by different channels (Like ThegnThrand, Shadiversity, Skallagrim, Metatron, Tod's Workshop, Modern History TV, Lindybeige or anyone else who want to try it) using multiple targets. Many different swords to test both 1 and 2 handed as well.
This might even make for good video series to test more targets then compare the results.
Additionally I think certain thinner or sharper pointed sword cross guards may provide more penetration than axes to certain targets. Exactly what types might qualify I am very interested to find out with the tests! Now use the back spike on a ax and a war hammer and I believe they both should outperform the swords, but who knows? Maybe the swords will surprise us.
As with any holding onto blades test, although it can be done without gloves so long as the blade doesn't slide in your hand, better to wear thick sturdy gloves for safety, better grip and to absorb the shock from impact.
As always thanks for the great content. Stay safe in these crazy times! Fight on with Dreams and Honor!
Love your back garden and all the song birds. It reminds me of why we love visiting our friends in England.
Hey, Matt! What about the economics (production costs, resources availability and maintenance) of swords, axes and spears? How do those weapons roughly compare on those aspects?
According to some estimates, a sword could be as expensive an entire farm/homestead (probably including at least one ax and possibly a spear or two as well).
Another thing to consider is the advantages of having less edge, such as being better able to penetrate armor. For example the point of a rapier is a lot better at penetration than the edge of a saber as the force is concentrated over a smaller surface area. The smaller the edge of the axe the more likely it will penetrate when it does make impact. So if fighting a heavily armored opponent you stand a better chance with an axe than with a saber or sword because the saber might just slide off. This is also part of why it damages shields more (the inertia is obviously the other big contributor).
I think one of the key things you missed in axes vs sword with shield, is that for the time, axe fighting generally was at an advantage against sword shield, because the way they fought with an axe was to clip/hook the shield, drag it down, and a quick motion to stab the sharp edge into the combatant.
I don't know if only going through half a leg or arm matters. A half-severed limb is enough to destroy the combatant's will to fight.
Hmm, your one handed axe is too small for a proper demonstration? Sounds like the perfect excuse to order a new one that has a larger blade! Will that excuse work on the wife?
Videographer here: You should try and keep your exposure settings on manual. That way you won't have the brightness going up and down all the time.
Cutting watebottles was not often seen in the battlefields of the early medieval.
Have a test like: what is splitting a helmet of the time better, a hatchet (tomahawk/franziska), a danish long axe or a one handed sword.
This are things that have been seen or experienced in the battles of the early medieval.
Maybe we can have him put a water bottle inside the helmet 😃
That Axe you are calling a Tomahawk is far too large to be a Tomahawk. It is closer to a woodsman's axe. You don't need to cleave through an arm or leg to disable it either.
plus, if you miss with an axe on a full force downward swing, it might get stuck in the ground, much less chance with a sword. but your right about the power, i would never try to block a downward axe swing, not trying to get shield splinters inside my broken arm
Another Schola video watched en garde. My half shield is getting better! Sound martial and historical information (to the best of my knowledge), as always. Great points about the nature of swords vs. axes and the fine details of cutting, this is one of your best lectures. It seems I paused watching your vids right when the channel leveled up lolz
I did a lot of cheering for the sword in this one. The info in this vid is another reason that I went sword - and never looked back. It's also a good reason I have a healthy respect for the axe, no beef with it, and am glad to see it's just out there as what it is and I don't see anything like the katana fanboy club tank-cutting mystique around it lolz. The axe seems to be well understood and given proper cred for its properties, it's the blasted spears that I think need to be cut down to size (sharpens blades even more)
Good points especially about how, on water bottles, a rapier can easily cut better than a falchion or machete, because of the tip speed. It's a big reason a lot of bullets (like 5.56x45mm M855 steel core/armor-piercing rounds - one of the deepest penetrating an assault rifle can fire) zap through armor and barriers well, but have poor terminal performance on people. The rapier can seem like a better cutter, because of the way velocity affects how one thing hits another thing, when in reality the slower moving and more massive blade will cut real people and wood better - but water bottles worse. Given the nature of that, it explains why I've always been so frustrated trying to cut water bottles myself with my machete - the DSA arming sword did better ;) That, and the bottles were empty, plus Gatorade bottles (what I usually find) are tough targets lolz. I still intend to do all your cutting challenges, I wish I still had my Modern tomahawk (like SEALs and other operators who operate in operations use) to answer Thrand's as well - but I gave it to my prepper uncle who lacked any melee weapons aside from the usual plethora of knives: th-cam.com/video/QgyY7uAAXic/w-d-xo.html
Thinking of "then" real life application of battles in formation and not 1vs1 or tournaments or "hollywood-esque brawl battles":
Don't you think, these large Axes were more likely used from the second row in a fight between formations, cutting between two of your own guys - this would add an additional threat to your opponents first row, they would have to react to. Subsequently, the impact of the lack of defensive capabilities would be minimized, as well as the "varying distance to enemy" factor (as you described the disadvantage of a smaller edge), because in this formation 1) mostly your first row is your protection and 2) the enemy will be in front of your first row, with little space to step back or forth, because of their own second row and your first row.
Of course, the enemy formation would most likely have similar tactics applied, so consequently you have to adjust again to it and so on...maybe you could explicate on this interesting topic in a video. Thank you!
An example, that could show you the use and impact of that, you can search for these medieval inspired team matches on TH-cam.
It is a bit of a stretch, but the closest, I could come up with, compared to melee battles in the past, that we could watch today.
Often times the guys with shields and smaller weapons are in the front, while the guys with polearms and axes are trying to reach over or besides them and try to hit the enemy from the second row.
An example:
th-cam.com/video/u3jV93rNils/w-d-xo.html
Larger one:
th-cam.com/video/JFWpkWEA5xg/w-d-xo.html
Cutting pole arms such as glaives billhooks and voulges were developed to overcome the problem with short edge length of war axes (dane axe).
I think you may be putting a bit too much emphasis on the smaller edge as a disadvantage and not taking into account the huge difference in impact force. Against any opponent wearing decent armor, you won't be cutting them down with either the sword nor the axe, most swords won't even pierce through chainmaille either. However, you can just as easily smash someone's head in with an axe after 2 or 3 good blows, or just one with a two handed axe. Historical helmets were excellent against cuts, but they were not thick enough to whitstand several blows to the head with what is essentially a sharp hammer.
Soldier of Wotan, Exactly. Kinda comparing apples to oranges. Armor the hell out of the bottle, chain mail will do. That’s comment 1.
Comment 2 is you can thrust with an ax and even pierce. Note the pointy bit at the top of the blade. I have trained with axes and the comparison would be closer using a glaive vs ax. Much better fight.
Ax speed can also be determined by choking up with your forward hand on the haft of the ax... this also changes the range. Lastly, Dane ax vs swordsman with shield. Move off line shield side, hook shield, yank it down a bit, thrust into side of helm. This is a simple example, it can get more complicated.
Not mentioned, and vitally important: how difficult is it to produce an ax, compared to a sword?
How hard is it to make a spear? How long does it take to train someone to use a sword, or an ax, or a spear? How many highly trained warriors were on the ancient battlefields?
Spears are very cheap and easy to produce, and hunters were very familiar with them. They work.
Axes are much easier to make than swords, and many peasants were adept in their use for chopping.
Swords weren't used as hunting or farming implements, are very expensive and time consuming to make, and require a lot of training to use properly. Thus, spears and axes for the common fighter.
Swords have developed a strange mystical ambiance over the years, probably because they were used by the nobility, and were often forged with great expertise and care.
But it's the lowly spear and ax that actually wreaked havoc on the battlefield, and then the bow and arrow. Swords are elitist and overrated weapons.
06:00 It's not like you need to do a clean cut and arms are attachedto the body so even if you miss the arm you will hit the body. But we all know the only reason why swords weren't used that much in Viking era is because only the richest could afford them. Axes are just small amount of iron on a stick compared to the craftmanship required to forge an entire high quality sword.
I think the largest disadvantage with axes is weapon recovery. Axes are relatively easy to get caught/stuck on and in things and bits. Not only does that make recovery often more difficult but given the moving nature of combat it can weaken the grip or bring your arm out of position.
There is another advantage to the sword which was not mentioned for some reason. While you were mention the weight of the axe being at the end of the weapon there is a major drawback and that is recoil. It takes more time and effort to bring the weapon around to attack again. Whereas the balance of a sword being close to the handle means follow up attacks are much more effortless and far more expedient.
I wonder if most of the time axe wielders just used the first swings as just a club to keep the enemy down, and using the edge as the killing bow.
Every swing was a club swing, frontline troops were usually too well armored to cut with any weapon. So the preferred tactic was clobering them in the head and face until they die. Depending on the helm and the axe, the amount of solid hits required would go from 1 to 4. You could never pull this off with a sword.
It's funny that two handed swords didn't really show up until plate armor, presumably because you needed your offhand for a shield - but two handed axes, like the Dane Axe was popular?
They appeared for different reasons. The longsword, a sidearm, indeed came up when a shield was no longer needed. It was a versatile weapon great against gambersons and okay against maille (with half swording). It's intended use on the battlefield was allowing the knight to continue inflicting casualties after a succesful charge in which the lance was discarded. This would generally cause infantry to flee. However, dismounted knights with polearms were a hard counter to this.
Now let's get to the axe. The dane axe was used very similarily to the High Middle Age polearms, and could very well be considered a primitive pollaxe. The troops that wielded it, huskarls and berserkir, were also themselves very similar in function to dismounted knights. In the bayeaux tapestry, you see them repelling cavalry charges, killing horse and horsmen alike in the battle of hastings. One should note though, these men still used shields in battle! They would block projectiles with the shields then put them away and use their axes in close combat.
Never overlook the importance of fear on the battlefield. A Dane ax is simply a heck of a lot scarier than a one handed ax or sword.
thank you for being always so articulated and logical about those things.
Never knew Anglo-saxons wore Carhartt pants whilst practicing :)
It's good to see that the War on Plastic still rages on even during the lock-down. Keep up the fight brother!
Great video. Did these tests myself once I got my sword. Love my axes but dang having a legit sword is awesome
Love the axe videos, but then I make axes. On a moving target the smaller amount of edge is a issue no doubt, however like any weapon the more practice the less issue. Have someone toss produce at you and attempt to cut it cleanly in air. Messy but a lot of fun, you will eventually rarely miss.
yea he missed this. it's not hard to strike precisely where you mean to (with a bit of practice). matt easton brain fart.
I'd watch an entire video just ringing the blade of that Dane axe like a tuning fork. What a sound that is!
Just stumbled across your channel by accident. Great analysis. You win a new subscriber!
I've always preferred axes because I don't have a lot of arm/upper body strength; the added leverage and inertia of an axe helps compensate for that.
I've got the exact same axe that I modified a bit but in general it's a good axe. It's a great throwing axe as well as melee weapon.
Hi Matt greetings from Los Angeles California cool video.
I would ask can you use the sword around the house for cutting wood or prepping meat like a belt axe? I would say the use of the axe vs the sword is whether the person wielding it is capable of affording another tool that is impractical around the house.
Also the cost of the iron or steel and labour to make it
Given human psychology I doubt the shaft of the Dane Axe is as big of a problem in a melee as you are suggesting, because most people are going to see the sharp metal head and not want to get close to it at all, and so will move away or keep range. Not to mention the horns, which while certainly not as penetrative as a sword tip, can certainly dig in. So even in the off chance someone is crazy enough to try charges you thinking they can get in past the tip, suddenly they're getting stabbed from behind, as you push and pull them into the head. Less an issue if they mail, but probably non-too pleasant even if they do. After all it's not like a video game where only the metal bit does damage, because a nice solid staff can still break bone with enough force.
Think of a classic shieldwall, it almost impossible to break. Now imagen some hirdmen swining big Dane Axe outside the "effective" retaliation from the defender in the shieldwall....
I’ve used both in shield fighting and I tend to prefer an axe as a 1 handed sword seems to be almost useless against someone wearing chain or heavier armor. Physics aside, the biggest draw for me is the shape of the axe as it’s perpendicular design allows it to reach over the edge of shields and score hits to the head unless my opponent raises their shield abnormally high to compensate. This forces them to adopt an almost perpetual high guard which opens them up to strikes in other areas that would normally be covered by a lower guard. Without a shield, however I do feel the advantages of a sword outweigh those of an axe where technique is concerned, however, I think that even with single 1 handed fighting I might go with the axe over the sword if any sort of armor is involved simply because I don’t trust a sword to penetrate anything greater than a gambeson, whereas my axe will break bones and crush what’s underneath the armor even if I can’t manage to cut
The wooden handle would reduce feedback vibrations, which may also be an advantage in an endurance slugfest.
This is good advice. I'll remember it the next time I take the subway.
The axe is a hammer with a sharp edge, if it cutts its a bonus
somehow I was faster than my youtube bell recommendation
Thanks for the Video!
I had an Idea when your thumnail picture of the "Viking weapon overvew" Video reminder pops up at the end:
We have a Battle situation: the fight startet with spears the armys are in close combat and there is not much space left. Behind me are the friendly troops - cant step back easy. Left and right my brothers are fighting together with me and protect my flanks with their shields. In front is the enemy try to kill using spears as well, but then hell breaks loose and a kind of orginized chaos beginns.
In this situation I could imagine drawing speed is an importand factor.
When the Armys come so close that spears become ineffective because of their long shaft, how difficult it must have been to draw your sword quickly if an enemy dives under the spears or whatever. I´m sure it is possible but I would say it´s much quicker to draw the axe in this Situation AND you need much less space (to do it quickly). And on the other hand if an enemy came so close you have no time! You have to switch your weapon FAST! Maybe another reason why the axe was so loved. Especially when teamfighting was the main fighting target.
Spear and axe seam to be a perfect combination for that kind of fight situation (long range thrusting and very short range vertical cutting/bashing).
And now bring a few dane axe fighters behind the front shield line ;).
So when I think of your Spear Video. I would say two groups of People one with Spears and Axe and one with spears and swords. Or maybe even in 1vs1 one guy spear/sword/shield the other spear/axe/shield. Is quick weapon changing not an really important factor?
Best regards
I'm not a weapons expert obviously but I swing a LOT of axes, splitting mauls, etc. The single handed swing demonstrated here seems awkward. It is being swung from the shoulder apparently. The single handed swing benefits greatly from the same torso action that comes naturally with a double handed grip.
With the axe distance does matter, but it can be controlled by sliding your grip and extending your arms. So while you do need to consider the range of your opponent, you can adapt to it, so it's an extra consideration, but not a debilitation. Also, the fact that the axe isn't wide enough to cut the entire thing doesn't matter, because cutting most of a limb is just as good as all of it, maybe better, because cutting less means cutting deeper.
The primary reason for the axe was of course the cost of metal and skilled metalworking.
This video was very technical but did not touch on the scenarios where the axe was to be used. From the second rank in shieldwalls, ship to ship fighting, infantry vs light cavalry in skirmishes etc. The dane axe could also be used as a thrusting weapon to the head in a tight spot. I think the axe deserves a little more credit :-)
When that have been said. The sword was a superior weapon, but it takes skill. Axes also takes skill, considerably so, but they were used every day for household tasks so the base skills were already ingrained.
I would definately ntk want to go up against an skilled axe wielder. The myth about the axe-man on stamford bridge might have a grain of thruth in it.
It really does not matter that much.
I mean, maybe a sword will cut your arm completely, while an axe will cut half of it, then tear the rest because of the impact, like happens in the cut test in this video.
In both cases you are armless, and dead.
What we need are some Monks to test on. But, most forensic studies don't support clean cut cleaving rather, glancing blows on skulls and other large bones. Even, reports of executions often reveal rather poor axe work requiring two or more blows.
For medieval shield wall fighting, the Saex or similar short sword would be the ‘go to’ offensive weapon. Also the lethal blows would mostly be stabs, not edged blows. However (and I can’t recall the source for this) I have read that warriors alternating between short sword and one handed axe was the lethal combination in a shield wall. One warrior to use an axe to hook an opponents shield, with the neighbour in the line gutting that opponent when his shield is pulled out of position
if you even 1/4 cut through an arm or leg... your enemy is fkkked. Especially leg.
you should do a video cutting bottles or a mat with a rapier or something similar, I don't think I've ever seen that done before
Gotta say I do love your new garden.
Duelist 1954 sent me here. I’m glad he did, great video.
The biggest advance about the axe is that you can also use it for work. I love items that you can use for multiple things.
I would argue that "only" cutting halfway through an arm or a leg or a head is pretty much the same thing in battle as cutting completely through in the heat of battle.
True enough, however, in cases where you would miss when using an axe (or hit with the shaft), you'd have more chances of delivering a solid hit with a sword because of the longer edge
That wood pile, makes me want to get my hands on some of that, would be great for some wood working projects!
My good man, just found your channel, and subscribed.. Very informative content.
Axes beard can grab a man where a sword cannot, I enjoy both weapons. Also for "the bind" I can use an axe for repetitive quicker strikes without load bearing a sword. A short axe would be preferable in a trench etc etc. But really once you add a bit of cloth and leather or some mail, swords become almost decorative toys except for the stab; wrap that bottle in chain and try a cut, bet it wont cut the mail, but the beard might hook in...
"Why Viking Axes Are Worse Weapons Than Viking Swords..."
What? Matt says that? Impossible!
"...In 1 Important Way"
Ah, that's more like it. It would depend on context, of course.
Unfortunately, if I cut up my plastic bottles before I take them to the recycling, I won't get the refund (0.5l gives 2 NOK, 1.5l bottles give 3 NOK … individually, not a lot, but it all adds up).
Also, I don't have any axes.
Then you don't really have a problem 😁
@@thomasraahauge5231 Not having an axe is kind of a problem :D … not so big that it bothers me (since then I'd go get one), obviously.
@@thossi09 I have a few axes. I don't wield them against my bottles. I need the money back. I guess I could survive with fewer axes, but nahh. I have axes. A real man has axes! I have axes, too.
Would an axe not be more versatile? Like a better weapon for maybe random raids on villages. Or random disorganised fights, smashing down doors, surpise attacks on the unarmed or unprepared. Prob better against armour helmets etc just for the impact momentum. Also axe can be used as a clearing building chopping tool and thrown.
As well as being cheaper and easier to maintain than swords, axes were more useful on expedition. Being not only implements of war but also construction and repair. In some cases even mining.
Axes in war were also more readily able to smash through armor where swords would dent and bend against heavy armor.
But mostly you would see axes in the ranks of foot soldiers and swords in the hands of nobels and house Jarls and cavalry.
It occurs to me that, in combat where I was using a shield, and the opponent was doing likewise... that holding the shield and a long and narrow bladed weapon in my left hand using ice pick grip, and an axe in my offensive hand might actually be really effective.
I imagine using the axe to grapple a shield out of the way, keeping the shield between my opponent's offensive weapon and myself while attempting to get the weapon I'm holding in my shield hand into my opponent's squishy bits.
It's nice of your opponent to just stand there and let you practice your blow without fighting back.
I've run HEMA classes for 20 years.... You're making this snarky comment to the wrong person ;-)
@@scholagladiatoria I know, I've enjoyed your videos for several years :-) Though I was just being silly, there's a point if I think about it. In this case, the challenge was to see what is possible, but in other situations where we're not testing your "ideal cut", but an average blow in a battle situation, the context could be changed to fit it. That could mean making the target "wobble" around, putting a moving deterrent in front of it (like sword+shield on wobble mechanism) and randomly telling the tester where to hit so he has no mental preparation.