Differences in 1h mace/axe/club vs. 1h sword?

[Jonathan_Kaplan]

I have a friend that is interested in the particulars of the differences between fighting with a one handed club, axe, or mace versus a one-handed double-edged straight arming sword. He is doing this for a fictional story. As best as he can figure, the main differences are things like that axes might have a slightly higher weight, or that it is often more about wearing someone down with strikes, or that it is less nimble than a double-edged sword. He has found this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhRCNLMzUMY but he would very much like a superior video on the differences about fighting with these innately less-balanced weapons, as well as some critique about the issues with that video in particular, as well as what techniques can't be used with the other types of weapons. Also, any manuals that focus on one handed axe, club, or mace would be great too, or at least any webpages that clarify the differences! Thanks!

[James Brazas]

Some of this may be obvious, but it could be worth saying:

Of course, there isn't much on axe, mace or club in the manuals.

Talhoffer has a short section dealing with clubs for judicial duels, though. Paulus Hector Mair has a section on a two-handed club. Mair also includes the two-handed "great flail."

There is also plenty of material on the pollaxe in Le Jue de la Hache, Fiore De'i Liberi, Talhoffer and Paulus Hector Mair, though that is quite a bit different from the one-handed battle axe you are probably thinking about.

Arming sword probably isn't a good analog for mace, club, or axe. Personally, I'd say mostly use Messer techniques with some concepts from quarterstaff and pollaxe thrown in.

Like a Messer:

I think the closest thing to a club, axe, or mace would be the Messer. Messers are one handed weapons and (like axes, clubs, and maces) emphasize powerful cutting strokes (not thrusts).

Obviously, there are certain techniques that work with one and not the other. Messers have cross guards and nagel guards that can be used to protect the hands, catch enemies' blades, etc. It's great for binding and winding. Axes, maces, and clubs have little to no hand protection. So it would be good to keep that in mind. The lack of a cross or nagel guard would also make binding and winding more difficult to do safely.

Like a Staff:

For blunt weapons, a lot of the mechanics of striking are different - more like the quarterstaff. Edge alignment doesn't matter since there is no edge to align. In that sense, they are much easier to use.

Also, like a staff, there is no hand protection for any of those weapons.

For axes, obviously, you still have to worry about edge alignment to cut well.

Like a Pollaxe:

Axes can be viewed as something like a one-handed pollaxe. The same techniques you would use for the head of a pollaxe can be used with an axe. So the strikes and hooking motions would be the same. You just wouldn't have the same reach, the long pole for parrying, or the butt-spike on the base of the pollaxe.

So, in short, I would say the axe would be used like somehting of a cross between a Messer and Pollaxe. The club and mace would be used like something of a cross between a Messer and a Quarterstaff.

That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

[James Brazas]

Regarding the video:

The axe has the advantage of firepower - and therefore the ability to displace enemy attacks. It can displace the spear or sword, knocking them aside. It can injure the opponent's shield arm slightly even if the blow is blocked. Unless the enemy is wearing full plate, a single direct hit from an axe would probably be fatal. With full plate, it would still cause injury and dent the armor. How much injury and how big of a dent is hard to say. It would depend on a variety of factors.

However, the sword-and-shield user could easily have parried a blow using the shield and attacked with the sword simultaneously. Simultaneous shield and sword techniques are the bread and butter of MS I.33 Sword-and-Buckler as well as the Sword-and-Target (round steel shield) of the Italian masters. Sword are, of course, generally more nimble than axes as well.

The spear has the advantage of reach. The spearman didn't even try to stab the axeman even though he could safely do so before the axeman was close enough to attack - probably because this video exists mostly to praise the axe.

Axes were powerful and useful weapons, but there were plenty of ways to counter them with a sword or spear. A lot of it revolves around good use of distance, timing, and speed to counter raw power.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

One-handed clubs and maces are usually short. Really short. So the weight isn't as far away from the hands as one might think, and the length of the weapon allows some really fast and furious in-fighting. Wear a considerable amount of armour (especially on the upper body) or carry a large shield, close in against the enemy so that he wouldn't have the opportunity to use the full reach and finesse possible with a sword, and bash his head and shoulder and arm over and over and over. The mace can also be used in an icepick grip to stab like a dagger--or rather mash like a pestle.

A one-handed axe doesn't have to be very heavy either. Lengths also varied, from longer ones that had similar reach to the sword (and weight, though of course the balance would be different) to smaller, nimbler hatchets. It's worth noting that the axe isn't only good for hacking; like the Drei Wunder for the sword (hew, point, slice), the axe also has at least three ways to hurt the opponent (hack with the edge, poke with the top, and hook with the bottom of the head). An axe also has the advantage that the length of its grip can be changed at will -- even a fairly long-gripped axe can be converted into a more hatchet-like short-range weapon simply by gripping it closer to the head.

If you're looking for a link, Hurstwic's overview of the Viking axe is probably going to be useful. The following page on interpretations of fighting techniques from the sagas is a little more difficult to evaluate since, after all, they're forced to work from the contemporary equivalent of Hollywood or thriller novels (and they probably have much more trust in the sagas' accuracy than I do). There are many things I would have done differently than in their interpretations but I'd be merely pontificating out of my posterior orifice until I've had the chance to discuss it with them and test my ideas with weapons in hand.

[Kevin Reicks]

The show conquest is entertainment and little else. Everybody had axes way back when, but the sword was revered. The sword has better angles of attack and that matters a lot. An axe does have more armor penetration, but they aren't as versatile.

I have a friend that is interested in the particulars of the differences between fighting with a one handed club, axe, or mace versus a one-handed double-edged straight arming sword. He is doing this for a fictional story. As best as he can figure, the main differences are things like that axes might have a slightly higher weight, or that it is often more about wearing someone down with strikes, or that it is less nimble than a double-edged sword. He has found this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhRCNLMzUMY but he would very much like a superior video on the differences about fighting with these innately less-balanced weapons, as well as some critique about the issues with that video in particular, as well as what techniques can't be used with the other types of weapons. Also, any manuals that focus on one handed axe, club, or mace would be great too, or at least any webpages that clarify the differences! Thanks!

[Sal Bertucci]

Talhoffer has some plays where he uses a mace in judicial duels. He has similar ones with swords. It might be beneficial to anylizing the differences between the two.

Sal