Lack of Axes

[Craig Peters]

The various treatises written on different weaponry from the Middle Ages and the Renaissances seem to give a fairly complete understanding of how to best use a particular weapon. Information on the use of staves, daggers, clubs, flails, swords, and polearms are included in the various books. However, one weapon that seems strangely absent is the battle axe.

I have seen items for sale at museum replicas' webpage that are battle axes based upon various medieval and renaissance pieces. Yet no where have I encountered any instruction regarding their usage. I know "Le Jeu de la Hache" covers poleaxes, but they must be quite different in usage from a battle axe. Can anyone direct me to a fechtbuch that covers the battle axe, or failing that, offer an explanation as to why no master instructed on the use of the weapon?

[Shane Smith]

I have no reason to offer that explains why the axe isn't discussed by any of the Masters(to the best of my knowledge anyhow <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) but it seems odd that it isn't covered.That said,I'm still wondering where in the world all of those darn sword and shield texts are being hidden <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> It seems that these two historically common weapons are ALMOST totally ignored in the manuals. That has always struck me as odd in the extreme(especially the sword and shield).

[TimSheetz]

My theory is that axes were so common, everying knew how to use them... why bother with all the time and energy for handwriting a manuscript on a common weapon (used by peopl;e who maybe can't afford a sword).

[JeanryChandler]

I think that while axes continued to be used, their popularity as martial weapons among the elite of the fighting classes declined with the decline of the shield. Remember most of the Fecthbuchs which have been found and translated were written in the late middle ages and rennnasance period, by which time the older axes had evolved into longer poll-axes and halberds, just as the older arming swords and single swords of the dark ages had evolved into Longswords and cut and thrust types. (I don't go along with the idea that the Axe was an inferior weapon though, I think it just evolved out of recognition) Also, in the last few centuries of widespread shield use (9th - 13th century, say), I think axes were more popular among cultures on the fringes of Christian Europe where the Fechtbuchs were written, in the North among the Vikings, and in the East among Magyars and Prussians and Russians and Turks. I don't think the Vikings wrote Fechtbuchs as such but I bet there could be some good Indian or Persian manuals somewhere on them... does anyone know, did the Indians or Persians, or Ottomans write fighting manuals?

JR

[Guest]

Robert Bruce, the king of Scots, was susposed to be an "expert" with a axe incombat.

[david welch]

Maybe this is the start of some good research into axes ( my favorite <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

Richard I (1189-99) - Richard "The Lion Heart" - Favorite weapon - Axe

Richard III (1483-85) - Died holding his axe at the Battle of Bosworth

Robert the Bruce

"By the 12th century, the axe had become a popular secondary weapon for Anglo-Norman knights, both on foot and on horse" (Norman &amp; Pottinger 1979: 49)

The Battle of Aljubarota, 1385 (first version)
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/baljver1.htm

"During all this time the French were fighting; and those knights and squires who had been able to dismount performed many gallant deeds, for, when their lances were broken, they used their battle-axes, and with them gave such desperate blows on the helmets of all who opposed them, that wounds, if not death, were the consequences. "

"The king of Portugal dismounted, and, taking his battle-axe, placed himself at the pass, where he performed wonders, knocking down three or four of the stoutest of the enemy, insomuch that none dared to approach him. "

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bayeux_tapestry/sect25_27.html
"the axe in count Guy's hand, those held by the housecarles, and at the end in the battle of Hastings: all of these have the long cutting edge of the two-handed broadaxe. "

In the Bayeux Tapestry, the Tapestry shows the axe being carried in council and this could show that it was a badge of rank.

Clovis King of the Franks: " "None," said he, "hath brought hither arms so ill-kept as thine; nor lance, nor sword, nor battle-axe are in condition for service." And wresting from him his axe he flung it on the ground. The man stooped down a little to pick it up, and forthwith the King, raising with both hands his own battle-axe, drove it into his skull, saying, "Thus didst thou to the vase of Soissons!" On the death of this fellow he bade the rest begone, and by this act made himself greatly feared. "

[Craig Peters]

It would be nice to do some research into the use of battle axes; I too have an interest in them as a weapon. Perhaps an interested study group might tackle this challenge. I personally do not know where to purchase an accurate reproduction axe, and given that college formally starts tomorrow, I don't think it would be a wise idea for me to invest too much time and money at the moment. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Joachim Nilsson]

I think that while axes continued to be used, their popularity as martial weapons among the elite of the fighting classes declined with the decline of the shield. Remember most of the Fecthbuchs which have been found and translated were written in the late middle ages and rennnasance period, by which time the older axes had evolved into longer poll-axes and halberds, just as the older arming swords and single swords of the dark ages had evolved into Longswords and cut and thrust types.

The one-handed so called horseman's axe was actually quite common all the way through the 15th century and up to, and including the beginning of the 17th century. Especially among the knightly classes. Something that is evident on a lot of old woodcuts for instance. There are also a lot of preserved, as well as unearthed specimens of the horseman's axe that has been dated to ca 1500 (and there about). The pole-axes and halberds existed along side the horseman's axe.

Here's a link to a replica of a typical horman's axe (this one is dated to the end of the 16th century): http://www.lutel.cz/20012.htm
A real beauty, no?



Regards,

[Craig Peters]

Joachim, that's a beautiful axe. Though I don't know the correct historical term for them, I really like axes with heads of that sort. It would be nice to see a reproduction of it made by someone skilled in making renaissance weaponry.

If what you say is true, it strikes me as very odd that there would be no fechtbuch covering the use of the single handed axe. I assume that many fechtbuchs are found within the libraries of old universities, like Oxford. It would be well worth the time to poke around and try and find an old manual covering single handed axe play as it would certainly help to round out the knowledge of medieval and renaissance weaponry.

[Joachim Nilsson]

Yes, it's a truly beautiful piece of weaponry. The first time I laied my eyes on that picture I fell in love. That's definately a future addition to my collection. I and fully believe that the depicted axe is a horseman's axe, despite what lutel have named it in their catalogue. I have a couple of photographs of hormen's axes in a booklet of mine that bear resemblance to that particular axe. If I'm not mistaken I have also seen a few similar ones on the internet. Although I can't seem to recollect exactly where though... <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

But I do find the lack of axes in the manuals odd too. It's a very interesting question to ponder (or investigate and study further). One reason for axes not being included could be that since one can (perhaps) easily "translate" movement patterns and techniques from other types of weapons and apply them to the axe, any axe-presense in the manuals where thus deemed superfluous. But this is just mere specualtion on my part. If anyone else has any other theories, or solid facts for that matter, please speak up. But the fact is: axes were both popular and common, but for some reason not included in any of the (known) manuals.

[JeanryChandler]

You are right, I should have remembered that. I was thinking as I probably too often do, in terms of infantry and dismounted combat, of the type you normally see in the fecthbuchs. Those shorter axes did continue in use with cavalry, and other similar weapons such as short, all metal war hammers and war-picks.

Thanks for the correction on that point.

JR

[Patrick Kelly]

I own that particular Lutel Axe, as seen here.
http://www.myarmoury.com/pat_othr_lutel_20012.html?3

As is evident by the statistics it's a rather large axe. A nice piece overall, but I wouldn't call it a horsemans axe.

[Joachim Nilsson]

Well, if one compares that one to other axes, either preserved ones, photographs or drawings of preserved ones that look the same -and already are classified as horseman's axes- I'd very much like to call that one a horseman's axe too. In the previously mentioned booklet of mine (a 32 page publication made by the Swedish Royal Armouries called Ryttarens hammare och yxa by Heribert Seitz) there is a photgraph of a Polish horseman's axe that's dated to ca 1600 that is similar to the one you own. Also, figure 20B on page 48 in Oakeshott's A Knight And His Weapons there is yet again an axe (similar in appearance to Lutel's) that is featured as an horseman's axe. The same similarities are again repeated on especially page 72 in another Oakeshott book; European Weapons And Armour. What all these, Lutel's axe as well as the ones featured in the above mentioned publications, have in common are the (often) "bearded" axe-blades as well as the short, quite flat hammerheads opposite the axeblades. The quite big proportions you mentioned coincide nicely with the general proportions of other horseman's axes. The average haftlength of the horseman's axe was 18-26 inches. Add then to that the axe-head and you have a weapon of very similar weight, and most likely weight (not to mention appearance) to Lutel's "battle-axe". And there have always been differences between weapons of the same kind/family -just like one longsword might be somewhat longer and of a different weight than another one, one horseman's axe might be slightly longer and heavier than other axes of the same kind.

Lutel are not always very accurate in their desciptions. They have, for example, chosen to call this one: http://www.lutel.cz/20022.htm "battle axe" too. When it in fact is a pole-axe.

[Craig Peters]

The interesting thing about that website is that there seems to be a fair amount of variety in the different types and styles of axes. In nearly every case, a weapon that has a number of different varieties in existence is a weapon that is considered useful. Consider the more modern day equivelent with the AK-47 and its varients, for example. No one would bother to make a whole bunch of variations on the AK unless there was something useful about them over other guns; similarily, no one would bother playing around with different styles of axe head unless the weapon was used frequently in battle. The fact that no one seems to have catalogued this weapon seems highly improbable.

Patrick, have you spent some time swinging that particular axe? If so, do you have any observations that you'd care to share with us?