The mighty Axe

[Steven Blakely]

I would like to know were i could find instruction on meadevil and ren axe fighting. it seems that one of the most used weapons in all of history is always over looked. most people of the time could not afford a sword. although the sword is one of many legends it seems to me that the axe
is just as deserving of our attention

[Mark Driggs]

Steven,
First off, unless your middle name is 'ofthe' and last name is 'sword', I suggest you click on your profile and add your full name per the forum rules. You'll probably get a less snarky warning from a moderator or admin if you don't do it soon.

Secondly, not much documentation can be found about axe fighting. It was much simpler than sword fighting (though no less dangerous). You will find examples of poleaxes in Talhoffer and Fiore, but there are few instances of the traditional one or two handed swinging axe we are all familiar with. The only online resource we have that is focused an axes is 'Le Jeu de la Hache', literally 'Game of the Axe': http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/lejeudelahache.htm
The combat described is more for courtly disputes rather than battle, though some techniques and history can still be gleaned from it.

Thirdly, you should come down to Provo sometime for one of our practice sessions. We meet on BYU campus on Tuesday nights and Saturday mornings. There's also a group up in Ogden if that's closer to you. Finally, we're having a 2 day National Training Program Event in April at BYU. There will be many of our senior members and others from all over the country. It is a great opportunity to really jump start your learning about our martial heritage. You do not want to miss it.

That being said, welcome to the forums!

Mark Driggs
ARMA Provo

[Steven Blakely]

I have found a video called the fighting Tomahawk. Now i know that the tomahawk is not a "Ren" weapon. But i am of the belief that axes for the most part are axes. And i was wondering would i be scourned by arma for develpoing this skill to teach others axe combat?

[Will Adamson]

As long as it's based on available materials and withstands the scrutiny of sparring, we all enjoy a good romp with unfamiliar weapons. Keep in mind though that the longsword is the basis for learning fighting in general, so don't ignore it.

I would not try to cross-reference tomahawk fighting with the use of axes in europe. The context is just too different as far as what the weapon is going to meet on the battlefield as far as other weapons and armor or shields, nevermind how different the weapon itself is. The Viking axe is probably the closest as far as form, but I would think the similarity would pretty much end there. Trying to borrow techniques between the two would be tantamount to the whole knight vs. samurai thing.

[Tony_Indurante]

I'd be willing to guess that a single hand axe is used much the same as a single hand sword. Two hand axe is probably be similar to the poll axe and long sword.

I doubt that there is seriously much difference between them, with the exception of a smaller striking area.

[Steven Blakely]

I still believe an axe is an axe. The who samuria vs. Vikings is irrelevent
In over 2000 years of history the axe has changed very little to not at all. Now im not saying with the lare 2 handed versions there is not going to be some differences. But i think that more effort needs to be shown towards the axe. The sword i will agree is by far the most popular, But as we all seem to forget that swords were on the whole more expensive and during the reniassance was being fazed out due to the fact that it was almost useless against plate armor. While the mace hammer and Axe were still being used as weapons of war. Now i am not saying the sword was still not in use and was far more romantesized than any of the other weapons but its role became a more symbolic and serimonial. Now this is not a rant on how much better the axe is than the sword. (Because we all know that it is not the weapon but he who wields it that wins the battles.) But in my oppinion this weapon is just as deserving of arma reaserch as the sword. and even if we have to move ahead a couple hundred years so that we can reverse engineer and due our best to discover what was done back then. I believe that the journey will be worth it and that is what i intend to do.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

I still believe an axe is an axe. The who samuria vs. Vikings is irrelevent
In over 2000 years of history the axe has changed very little to not at all. Now im not saying with the lare 2 handed versions there is not going to be some differences. But i think that more effort needs to be shown towards the axe. The sword i will agree is by far the most popular, But as we all seem to forget that swords were on the whole more expensive and during the reniassance was being fazed out due to the fact that it was almost useless against plate armor. While the mace hammer and Axe were still being used as weapons of war. Now i am not saying the sword was still not in use and was far more romantesized than any of the other weapons but its role became a more symbolic and serimonial. Now this is not a rant on how much better the axe is than the sword. (Because we all know that it is not the weapon but he who wields it that wins the battles.) But in my oppinion this weapon is just as deserving of arma reaserch as the sword. and even if we have to move ahead a couple hundred years so that we can reverse engineer and due our best to discover what was done back then. I believe that the journey will be worth it and that is what i intend to do.

Swords were widely used weapons of war, even in the age of plate. Hence the masters having entire sections of their manuals dedicated to armoured fighting.

Swords were not useless against plate, You don't swing a sword against plate, because that's just stupid, you adopt a different tactic and use half swording, and thrust into the gaps in the plate.

[Jake_Norwood]

The real issue here isn't interest in the Axe or personal feelings about the axe or whether or not the axe is the *real* katana or any other such thing.

There is very, very little material covering the axe. This could mean a few things:

1. Nothing. Chance that it isn't recorded. Bummer.
2. The use of the axe (especially the 1-handed variety) lacks drill and "science" as applied to the sword, staff, dagger, unarmed arts, or their immediate relatives (polearms, shorter and longer swords, etc.)
3. The use of the axe is easier and more intuitive than the sword--less training was required
4. The axe wasn't all that great after all

Any of the above 4 could be true, or none of them. But we don't--and right now can't--know. 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).

The axe has very limited contemporary-to-period sources...not really enough to *authoritatively* say that "this" is what our ancestors were doing.

Is it deserving of our study? Sure. But there isn't much to study, for whatever reason...and we're not here to make stuff up about the axe or any other weapon.

Jake

[Steven Blakely]

First if all i would like you to explain the axe is the real katana remark because i didnt understand you meaning

I am not trying to say that the axe is somehow this ultimate weapon. I am just saying in my own passionate way that it needs more than just a passing glance. Even with the limited materials that we have. I think we could draw a safe conclusion as to what they did based on our own intuition and putting ourself as best we could in there shoes. Now i know allot of people would not agree with me, but seing as our knowledge is limited some of it will have to be left to speculation. and as far as having some sort of authority lay it down as gospel is not my intent. I just want to be trained as best i can in this weapon. Not for some silly dilusion of grandure but for the perpose of understanding the common soldier, The common man in those times. We need to remember that only the very rich and powerfull could buy the sword or were even alowed to use it in certain venues.

[Mark Driggs]

Another reason I thought of why axes were not taught or emphasized as much as swords could be the absence of a 'safe' axe simulator. With swords you have your wooden wasters, which is historic back to the times of the romans and probably before. Additionally, federschwerter were well designed to maintain the feel and balance of an actual sword with less severe blows dealt in sparring. A training axe doesn't seem to have existed back in the day. Even with live steel, you can more easily pull your shots and exercize point control. Axes are top heavy and have more momentum making them harder to stop. I know some waster makers sell wooden axes for training purposes, but they don't have a wide selection. Do you have any axe replications that you could safely spar with? It would be interesting to cross train against an axe with longsword...or sword and buckler for that matter.

Mark Driggs
ARMA Provo

[Andy Spalding]

First if all i would like you to explain the axe is the real katana remark because i didnt understand you meaning

I am not trying to say that the axe is somehow this ultimate weapon. I am just saying in my own passionate way that it needs more than just a passing glance. Even with the limited materials that we have. I think we could draw a safe conclusion as to what they did based on our own intuition and putting ourself as best we could in there shoes. Now i know allot of people would not agree with me, but seing as our knowledge is limited some of it will have to be left to speculation. and as far as having some sort of authority lay it down as gospel is not my intent. I just want to be trained as best i can in this weapon. Not for some silly dilusion of grandure but for the perpose of understanding the common soldier, The common man in those times. We need to remember that only the very rich and powerfull could buy the sword or were even alowed to use it in certain venues.

I don't think anyone here is opposed to axe training. Just that there is a lack of historical references. While putting ourselves in their shoes and trying to figure out what best worked is something every martial artist should strive for, we do it in context. We are not in the habit of making up techniques. With out a historical reference for technique, we really have nothing to base the training around.

[Steven Blakely]

I have also come up with some of the same ideas. the axe does not easily cross over from live steel to a sparring weapon. Not to mention in tourney it would have devastated expensive plate armor over the sword. Many reinactment groups will not allow the use of axes in there live steel combat because of its ability to shear of armor. I had a friend of mine who feared fighting against an axe because he had seen people loose pieces of armor to it.

As for a practice weapon after looking at the plastic waisters on this web site. I am of the belief that a nylon version maybee the way to go.

Although i do believe i know why there were not any double headed axes.
I have trained a little with tomahawks and i will tell you from expieriance that an axe is a weapon you do not easily pull back. Now i have helled A reproduction of Gimlis axe from lotr and i will tell you that is a heavy weapon. And in war speed is everything. Since a single head on an axe is hard enough to deal with a double would be brutal.
I am however interested in its uses for the common man at arms.
The axe was also used by robert the bruce in his fight against England.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

An axe is an axe, but different kinds of axe would have had different characteristics. First off there'd be a distinction between utility axes that had to be heavy enough to chop wood and dedicated battleaxes that were made lighter since they would have dealt only with human targets. And then a plain axe woul have had a differnt method of use compared to one with additional spikes and hooks on the top and back. So the knightly poleaxe was hardly the same as the Danish axe, which was different from the halberd/voulge.

So I disagree with the assertion that he axe hardly changed at all in 2000 years. Just look at poleaxes and halberds--and then to the variety of axes developed for mounted use in the Steppes. They had different shapes, weights, dynamics, and presumably methods of use.

It's also important to note that swords actually increased in popularity in the Renaissance compared to the Middle Ages. Sure, swords were not necessarily the best weapon against plate armor, but 1) there were a lot of soldiers who had less than complete armor and 2) the Renaissance also saw the advent of the sword as a civilian weapon. The sword was never popular as a civilian item of fashion in medieval Europe but in the Renaissance a gentleman's (civilian!) dress was not complete without a sword.

Not to mention that, later on, the decline in the use of armor also lead to an increase in the frequency with which swords were seen on the battlefield. Whether in terms of absolute numbers or in proportions, on average there were probably more swords in an 18th-century or a Napoleonic army than in a medieval army. So swords actually became more popular after the end of the Middle Ages!

Double-headed axes existed, but yes, they didn't seem to have been very popular as weapons. Some people even think that the double-bitted axe was more often used as a woodcutting tool than a weapon, since many of them had the heavier utility construction.

BTW, a particular feature of the axe techniques in the manuals we have is the use of the inner curve of the axe's head for hooking and tripping the enemy. With a poleaxe against armor, the top spike was the primary device for striking while the axehead was usually used for...well, hooking and tripping. Even when armor was less widespread (say, in Viking times) the utility of the axehead for hooking and tripping (I've used that term three times already!) should not be underestimated.

[JeremyDillon]

I would like to point out that while there is very little historical documentation for the use of the battle axe, Clements' Medieval Swordsmanship actually contains a small section on fighting the axe with a sword and shield and anyone interested should check it out.

[Steven Blakely]

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.