The mighty Axe

[Steven Blakely]

I would like to step back from the axe for just a seconed to tell you all something i have just found. Ken Mondschein did a review on medeival Swordsmanship buy john clements. I looked this book up becdause of a reference it has on axe fighting. I have never seen a more brutal review in my life. He used terms like Quote "Since most medieval martial arts only come down to us today in the form of elaborate, detailed written treatises, obviously, proper research methodology is critical, requiring not only a knowledge of all aspects of fencing, but also training in the historian’s craft and at least a passing familiarity with the original languages. “Medieval Swordsmanship” has none of this, rather, it is 324 pages of a 21st-century man’s opinion of how swords should be used, based on his own backyard experimentation, riddled with factual errors, and infused with a liberal amount of screeds against modern sport fencers, theatrical fight choreographers, and anyone else the author deems lacking in proper martial spirit and intent."
How often do we as hobby scholars face this kind of unabashed........well, Bashing.

[Brian Hunt]

Steven,

Sure you can argue that a single handed axe is a single handed axe, but a lot of the materials I have seen on fighting with the tomahawk are themselves a reconstruction, so you are arguing for a reconstruction on top of a reconstruction. Seems like an awful lot of room for error. Plus I would argue that starting in the 18th or 19th century and trying to work your way backwards through time to try and work out a system for say combat with a viking type axe is heading the wrong direction. A lot of classical fencers try and go in this direction because of their background in epee, foil, and saber. It doesn't quite work, a lot of fighting techniques changed and became more oriented for the dual after the introduction of the small sword. Military saber was simiplified and changed for the simple neccesity of speedy training of recruits, etc.

IMHO the best place to start research is with the earliest written materials availible to us for the weapon you wish to study, then work your way forward and see what changed and why. Since there is no written material for a single handed axe it leaves anything you come up with (no matter how good it may be) as a new way of fighting with an axe rather than a historically provable interetation or reconstruction.

Seems like you are looking to hoe an awful hard row.

good luck with your research.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Brian Hunt]

I would like to step back from the axe for just a seconed to tell you all something i have just found. Ken Mondschein did a review on medeival Swordsmanship buy john clements. I looked this book up becdause of a reference it has on axe fighting. I have never seen a more brutal review in my life. He used terms like Quote "Since most medieval martial arts only come down to us today in the form of elaborate, detailed written treatises, obviously, proper research methodology is critical, requiring not only a knowledge of all aspects of fencing, but also training in the historian’s craft and at least a passing familiarity with the original languages. “Medieval Swordsmanship” has none of this, rather, it is 324 pages of a 21st-century man’s opinion of how swords should be used, based on his own backyard experimentation, riddled with factual errors, and infused with a liberal amount of screeds against modern sport fencers, theatrical fight choreographers, and anyone else the author deems lacking in proper martial spirit and intent."
How often do we as hobby scholars face this kind of unabashed........well, Bashing.

JC would be the first one to tell you that his books are dated and the research contained in them is out of date as well. With that said, it is my understanding that his books still outsell most other books currently on the market despite their age. JC's books are about a decade old, since then a lot of translations that we didn't have when the books were written are now availible - thus Ken's statement about research and terms is nothing more than being snide because a lot of the things he attacks JC's books for is over things that were not availible when his books were written.

Also, there can be a lot of petty politics in the field of Western Martial Arts, just like there is a great deal of petty politics between Eastern Martial Artists and proffessional scholars (such as college proffessors). It has often been said that the fights between scholars are so big (such as the minute meaning of a translation of a word) because the payoffs are so small. Plus JC shot a lot of arrow's in his two books that hurt a lot of ego's so they strike back. Ken Mondschein has a personal axe to grind with JC, and you just read it.

I would say that if you are interested, buy or find JC's books in a library and give them a read and see what they have to say for yourself. I will say that I have personally never crossed blades with anyone else who is as skilled with a sword as JC is and I have been sword fighting for a very long time.

Personally I try to stay out of the political mud of WMA's as much as possible because when you wrestle in mud, you both come out dirty. The best way to do this is to discuss known facts and new findings as they come out and what they mean for current interpretaions of techniques, etc., rather than just attack others and their complete body of work.

all the best.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Jon Pellett]

Hello

Would the sickle material in Paulus Hector Mair be applicable at all? I know some of you guys are the experts on him. Another thing to check out would be the Turkish stuff - they have mace material, at least.

It's almost identical to the issue of shield use, actually. We have some limited sources on certain types of shields (dueling shields and bucklers) in very limited quantities (a few manuals) from even fewer masters (three of our dueling shield manuals are Talhoffer, for example).

Not to hijack, but according to my notes, there are 16 sword and buckler sources that I know of (counting all the Talhoffers as one), some of which are only a plate or two, but about half are fairly extensive. Of these, for three it is the foundational or only weapon. I know of 4 duelling shield (with sword or club) sources (again counting Talhoffer as one), 5 square targa texts, and 7 for the round shield strapped to the arm. Plus small bits on imbracciatura, Hungarian shield, and tartsche. Plus there are supposed to be a variety of shields dealt with in Monte, and is there anything in PHM? Marozzo and Manciolino have spear (partisan) and shield too. And Marozzo even has sword and shield against polearms.

So it's really not that bad.

Cheers

[Mark Driggs]

Ken Mondschein has a personal axe to grind with JC, and you just read it.

Axe to grind, eh? Brian, was that intentional given the original topic?

[Jake_Norwood]

Steven

The "real katana" reference was a joke, stemming from the common pop-culture belief that a katana can cut through anything and is the mother of all weapons, rivalling only the atom bomb in sheer potential. [sarcasm] The katana is better than the atom bomb, of course, because although a real one costs about the same you can use the katna over and over and over. [/sarcasm]

So just poking fun there.

I love axes. In my (very limited) boffer days when I was 16 I used a pole-axe of sorts with great success. I would *love* to study some legitmate axe-fighting techniques. I am not especially interested in inventing any, although if someone has a sparring axe around (of any shape) I'd be more than happy to use it, fight them with it, or be fought by it. One of my first sparring bouts with John C was me with a longword and him with an axe. It was...intense.

I would have to agree on some of what you said. But my original point was in fact to the study of axes is that learning a technique from a different time period can help us better understand the way it could have been used during the ren periods. And to say that an axe is an axe was a little to all inclusive. When my point should have been that studuing the tomahawk would have all the same moves as a single handed ren axe. I do recognize that there will be some suttle diferences but i can safely argue that a single handed axe is a single handed axe. Even with a spike out the back. And as far as a pole axe is concerned verses a danich axe. There will be some suddle diferences bacause one has mor options than the other but not to make them totally diferent weapons.

I think that learning tomahawk could, like all cross-training, be helpful, yes. And many tomahawk principles (if they're correct, since it, too, is a reconstruction) would apply to a single-handed european style axe, yes. It's not medieval axe, but that may not be all that important depending on your intended use.

Re: Ken and John C.

I don't know Ken's personal beef with John (and I thought I knew them all), but my guess is that he belongs to the very strong anti-JC circle that floats around SFI. I won't go far except to say that it really is probably just a personal bone he's picking.

As Brian H. said, also, JC's books are very old given the speed at which our understanding of this art is growing. At the time they were published, however, they galvanized this *entire* RMA/WMA movement. I'm not saying that they started it, but I can say that this movement would not exist without them. Others, such as Christian Tobler, have pointed this out repeatedly in their own publications. Love him or hate him, JC *is* one of the founding fathers of this movement, and his books are valuable reference simply because they were a starting point for so many in this manifold art.

And, since what we know about axe has changed very little in the last 10 years (from almost nothing to...almost nothing), I'd wager that JC's advice on axe-fighting is some of the best you'll encounter...as long as you recognize that it's advice based on his sparring experience, not on some secret hidden manual that only he has access to.

Jake

[Steven Blakely]

I have found pole axe waisters there on this website for the sword Academy. There a ren martial arts group based in canada. they also teach it. wich is anoying because there in canada. but i emailed them for either product information or a patern. If anybodie knows were i can get a pattern i would like to know.

[s_taillebois]

Another factor in the seeming lack of mention of axe use in the historical sources would be class disdain. Although the armour plated aristocracy (and their Renn. rivals the trade gentry) used various war axes/hammers, bec de corbins and etc. There would have been a class predisposition from writing too much about the run of the mill axe. These would have been the venue of the lower orders, who if they fought at all... did so as levees, which were often less than well regarded.
The fight manuals, although the printing press expanded the availability of information, were intended for the aristocratic, gentry, and a few of the upper yeomanry. As such, the mere ability to read them (or afford the cost of a book) was a class distinction. These societies were intensily status conscious, and very aware of the markers of their relative status. As such, for them, a sword meant something, an axe something less.

[david welch]

I usually try not to give stuff that is just my opinion and that has no factual basis, but here one goes anyway...

In modern combatatives, several of the top people are starting to outline their teaching strategies into terms of "hardware" and "software". This increases the ability to teach different things quickly, by decreasing the amount of different things you have to learn. One of the key parts to this is the ability to figure out similarities in use between weapons.

There is no doubt at all the old masters did this. For example, if someone learns half-swording he already has a good grounding in the use of a poll axe. All he has to do is make adjustment for the difference in hardware, but the same software runs both tools. In another example, Meyer says you do unarmed striking from what you learn in dagger... you just stab without holding a dagger. Both have the same basic software.

I also like axes, although I don't get a chance to play with them as much as I would like. I have also been looking at them for quite a while and have some thoughts you might like to consider.

I believe the hardware/software idea is consistent throughout WMA. I have yet to see anything that looks like they tried to reinvent the wheel when they could just substitute a similar technique.

But what is similar to a hatchet? Well a mace is sort of similar. A hatchet really is nothing but a mace with a blade. Unfortunately... we don't have anything on maces either. What else?

Well, if you look to your arm holding a dagger in underhand grip, and then at a hatchet, they both look similar. The hatchet just gives you an "extra elbow". This turns you "overhead chop" into a "downward thrust". From the other way of looking at it, if someone chopped down at you with a hatchet, you could take a dagger and block it with an upper shield, except you would block at the hatchet's "wrist" instead of at the person's. If someone stabbed down at you with a dagger, you could block with the axes hook and reach under and wrap them in an Americana. There are several more similarities you could find between using the available dagger information and a one-handed axe. Like I said, just think of it as another section of your arm, holding a wide bladed dagger. It works pretty well.

I believe that where possible, using the same software from the WMA masters when available to run similar hardware has a very good possibility of at least putting you in the ballpark when you are looking at the tools that don't have any material on them.

[Jake_Norwood]

I'd agree with that. We can assume a lot about fighting with an axe, and a great deal of it will (probably, but un-provably) be correct.

Jake

[Steven Blakely]

if it works than it has proven itself

[Steven Blakely]

I have come to this conclusion about the martial study of the axe.
I am not sure if i will ever find anything on the early martial study of the axe save for Le jeu de la hache only. I am however going to do this.
1. I have purchased a dvd on how to fight with the tomahawk and i am going to train with it. In hopes that i will gather the fundamentals of fighting with an axe regardless of its exact date of creation.

2. I intend to study Le Jeu De La Hache and glean all i can from that.

3. And the rest will be trial and error. as all good scholars know it is often times the best way to learn anything. And even though I will probably come up with a style that is far removed from the standered ren combat.
i think i will have discovered an axe form that is probably un historicle it will be a martial style none the less.

And besides for all those who train with a sword who cross blades with me it will be a unique experience. Worthy of at least one or two interesting stories.

[Randall Pleasant]

I have found pole axe waisters there on this website for the sword Academy. There a ren martial arts group based in canada. they also teach it. wich is anoying because there in canada. but i emailed them for either product information or a patern. If anybodie knows were i can get a pattern i would like to know.

Steve

I own a poleaxe waster from "Revival.us". Although I don't train with it very much I have been very pleased with it.
I think the hard rubber head and points make it more safer in training than steel or wood.

http://www.revival.us/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=227

[Steven Blakely]

in le jue de la hache The author talks about the Gros bout. What part of the axe is it. It seems to indicate the but of the axe according to the translater but i thought that is what the queue is?
Any ideas?

[Benjamin Smith]

I just thought I would mention something. This isn't much to work on, or even terribly important. George Silver mentions the "Battle Axe," and makes references to things that work with "all weapons" including guards and methods of attack and defense. If you have decided to attempt to learn axe fighting then this is the best advice I can get, find a historical axe, or the closest approximation you can get, find/make a tool of similar dimensions and weight and apply the general principles recommended by Silver and other masters to it.

YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE MANY CLAIMS TO
A) historical accuracy
B) that a certain master teaches any of the techniques you come up with
C) that you are learning what Silver or anyone else specifically taught. Silver doesn't mention whether "Battle Axe" is one or two handed, give any dimensions for the weapon, or specify techniques to do with it
D) eventually write up a book or something on it with any definite conclusions as the sources are too sparse.

YOU MAY BE ABLE TO
A) claim that you have made every attempt to reconstruct what you come up with to the best of your abiltiy from the limited historical source material (finding a real axe and getting specs to base your training tools off of would be the most difficult, and one of the most important).
B) participate in free play, or full-contact sparring to evaluate martial effectiveness
C) test to some degree the hypotheses that Jake voiced a few posts ago
D) examine iconography (pictures) and come up with something general.

I wrote this on the assumption that no matter what anyone says you're going to try. That's just my opinion on how one should go about it.