I remember that the video game "War of the Roses" is the only game I've ever played that accurately depicted this. If you were using an axe or hammer as a weapon then you would have to make sure your swings weren't too close or you'd just hit them with the haft. It added an interesting difficulty to combat, but it also made me appreciate why no other game has tried to replicate it (that I know of).
man, that was a cool title you could also reverse weapons with 2 heads to use either the cutting or the the hitting bit also, as a rider you would deal much much more damage if your horse was galloping
The first Mount and Blade kinda did it too. Haven't played the latest one, so can't comment on that. But I recall that when using longer polearms, if you were right next to a guy, you wouldn't be able to do damage with your weapon. There was a certain minimum distance that you had to be in order to get the attack to connect. However, it's been years since I've played the game, so I might be misremembering that.
Some of the Dark Souls games simulated this to some extent. The damage weapons inflicted varied by where on the weapon's hitbox connected to the enemy and some of did more damage further out than others.
@@winedarkemperor Momentum matters in Mount & Blade. So it's not distance as much as how fast the particular part of the weapon is moving, if that makes sense. Essentially, the tip of the weapon always deal more damage as it has more momentum than the grip, and it takes in to account moving speed and rotational speed. So the good players would both move towards the target as well as spin in the direction the swing to impart the most damage. And counter to that, if you move away and spin in the opposite direction of the swing, then you do far less damage.
Primarily over the years I've found that not many people are willing to engage in combat when I've been holding an axe. :p For legal reasons I'm obviously joking, honest!
Similarly, the TV Licence goons are so much more agreeable when I'm holding my gardening Bowie or my horticultural crossbow. Once, the letters ceased for 3 months! 💅✨
Not many swordsmiths. Every town had a blacksmith. Every blacksmith could make axe heads. Every peasant conscript was well familiar with axes. Very few were trained with swords. So for raising an army, axes were cheaper, used less resources, and were wielded more competently by conscripted woodsmen and farmers. Thats a HUGE advantage to axes vs swords. The logistics alone could make the difference of victory in battle.
@@lordbubax3929 right. And operate in a regimented phalanx, to keep the enemy from being able to close in where spears are useless. You're talking about a well trained, standing army like the Legionnaires. Again, way more funding, resources, and training required.
So, going with your argument, the axe filled the same niche as assault rifles do today. A simple, reliable weapon that can be mastered in a timely manner. Whereas the sword and the bow required a lot of training, like a sniper's rifle.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 It's not only about mastering it, because "mastering" swords for use in fight is not that much difficult (actually it's easier to learn the basics of sword fighting to do it at a moderately competent level than it is to be moderately competent at axe fighting, for the reasons discussed in this video). The main factor behind the axe's popularity was that it was super easy to make. "Axes and forks" are historically the weapons of the mass conscripts in feudal times, or the weapons of the revolting masses later; meaning, weapons that are easily built, and most times are already found in most agrarian households.
A duel is won by skill and weapon capability. Battles are won by logistics. Many an army was defeated by poor shoe quality, water contamination, or scarcity of equipment/lack of repairs. I was just pointing out that the strengths/weaknesses of axes vs swords extends well beyond their use in a fight.
Very interesting video, especially for a Hungarian guy like me, as the first axe you are holding is very similar to the traditional shepherd’s axe (called “fokos” in Hungarian) what is a very traditional weapon in Hungary and countries around Hungary. The “fokos” dates back to centuries, usually as “poor men’s” weapon, or common, non noble people’s weapon. There are several things lead to have this shepherd’s axe developed and used throughout the centuries. First, it was easy and cheap to make. Only needed a little of the metal part, the head, and almost any blacksmith could make it. And even the cheapest ones were made off molded brass or bronze. They were really only last ditch weapons, and not much use as a tool. But the steel ones also were used as a tool. The handle could made by any man, not needed any special skills. The handle of the shepherd’s axe usually made of several type of woods, always some kind of hard wood. The black locust brought to Hungary during the late 18th century to tie, got immobilize the sand of the Hungarian Great Plains. Also, turned out it is a great firewood, handle wood for tools, construction wood and also do not forget about the now “Hungaricum” “akác méz”, the black locust honey. Before this plant was available the oak, the hornbeam, the ash and especially the “dogwood” (Cornus mas, cornel, Cornelian cherry, European cornel or Cornelian cherry dogwood) was and is maybe the greatest handle material. It is virtually impossible to break, it is heavy and very hard wood (I know, I have some walking sticks from it for excursions and outdoor activities). There were times when carrying weapons were strictly forbidden for non nobles. That period was when pocket knives, penny knives became common, and also, a special form of the shepherd’s axe. This version had no permanently fixed head on the handle. Its handle had different thickness at the two ends. Where the head was that end was thicker, and they put the head on the thinner end, and let the head slipping through the whole handle to the thick end, where it stuck - sometimes a firm hit on the ground helped the head stuck even more firmly - and it was good to go. During the everydays it was only a walking stick, the head was in the pocket, or bag (haversack, called “tarisznya” in Hungarian), and when it needed, it was place on and put it into action. The shepherd’s axe (“fokos”) was symbol of several wars, revolutions as well. Hungarian revolution against the Austrian House of Habsburg’s troops (the “Labanc”) Hungarian freedom fighters (the “Kuruc”) used the “fokos” many times during the Rákóczi's War of Independence. But the “fokos” still found its way to the battlefield, even during the Great War, aka First World War, where Hungarian troops fought (usually used in the trenches as a melee weapon). As for civilian use, the shepherd’s axe was very popular with animal herders, especially among pig herders (called “kanász” or “kondás” in Hungarian). Even there is a type of the “fokos”, which named after them, “kanász fokos” or “kanász balta” (“balta” is the term for small axe, or hatchet). The type of the head could be several type. There were some with pointy, peak like side opposite to the edged side. These were clearly weapons only. I think these were called “Székely fokos”, the Székely people are a Hungarian ethnic group lives in Transylvania. There were also some with hammer like, flat side opposite to the edged side. These could be used as tools very well. The pig herders didn’t carry much things with them, the “fokos” was their “EDC tool”, their tool hatchet as well. But also it made good use against wild animals - feral dogs, wolves for example - and bandits, outlaws (the typical Hungarian outlaw called “betyár”, and they were also among the users of the “fokos”). The shepherd’s axe, the “fokos” is deeply in the Hungarian culture. There was a dance, when two man, (many times the pig herders) did “symbolic fight” using the “fokos”. Also, Hungarian martial art, the “baranta” uses the “fokos” as a weapon of choice (beside the stick). Also, during traditional weddings the best man carries a “fokos” with (Hungarian national colored) ribbon around its handle what has written on the bride’s and bridegroom’s name, and the wedding’s place and date. Sometimes a simple stick is used instead of the “fokos”, but for the real traditional feeling the “fokos” is the right choice. There are several blacksmith in Hungary who makes very nice replicas of the traditional shepherd’s axe, “fokos” nowadays. Some of them are modernized, some of them are made like a ceremonial grade piece of art, but some are made like the original ones, “the poor man’s best friend”. One of them is Ádám Thiele (nicknamed as “Bucavasgyúró”), I put some link for his works. Anyway, he has a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Mechanical Engineering and doing blacksmithing as a hobby, and experimenting and studying the old technics. www.bucavasgyuro.net/home.html
Something that highlights this kind of interaction in practice is Dequitem’s armored fights with maces, axes, and other hafted weapons. The striking distance and wind up greatly affects how hard they can strike with the weapons. And he highlights that with a long sword, that you can thrust without much windup, especially with the different guards and stances. It was fascinating seeing the collective narrative shift from swords being useless against armor and axes/maces being armor crushers to swords being a very capable weapons in armored combat and axes/maces being a bit more complicated to wield against another armored opponent. Something that’s not talked about or thought about much.
Mention is made in The Secret History of the Sword that a sword is not just for cutting or stabbing, but in its usage also becomes a club, since it can smash down hard on a target, like a baseball bat.
If you use one handed axe, you should have a shield in other hand - this will allow you to control how far is your opponent and hit him with correct part of the axe.
The point of axe fighting is that you come in with a swing while using your shield to protect yourself. If the opponent steps in you have to break ground and step back because you're at a huge disadvantage with an axe if you start a pushing match against someone who can stab you. Fighting with axe and shield is keeping your distance, keeping low, circling, and feinting until your opponent gives you a chance to come in with a killing blow. If you get too close to your opponent without striking you're as good as dead.
I have read through the comments and no one mentioned it. Technically the lower part of an axe is not a stick, but a club. The weight on the end does not vanish into thin air.
It's a wretchedly bad club, the weight at the end moves the point of percussion near the far end, so hits from below the head are going to be inconsequential by itself.
@kelseylock3030, let me hit you with an axe handle. You can have armor and a sheild. Your not going to have a very good time good thing it will be a short time before the next blow comes by
In fact that's a great point, because with the kinetic Force and the weight being concentrated at the head that means the point of impact is going to be significantly greater... So basically by you pointing this out you have eliminated his argument completely because he sang that a typical axe handle is going to act as little more than a stick that might bruise you or possibly break a bone but he's not factoring in is the weight of the head of the axe added to the motion of the downward swing or the side swing or whatever it's going to add significantly more kinetic power and it's going to do more than just a bruise or concussion it's going to cause a break or even possibly much worse...
Not only do you have to judge the distance more accurately to put the head of your weapon on your target, but with the majority of its weight out at the end of the shaft, if you miss, you have a greater amount of momentum that you have to cancel in order to recover your weapon to a ready position, so while you can get a greater impact when you hit, it's not going to be as fast as a blade, where the weight is more evenly distributed along the weapon's length. It may not be a _huge_ difference, but it's like the observation you made about the 1788 pattern heavy cavalry sword -- if it's heavier, or more unbalanced, you're going to be slower with it, and therefore at a disadvantage against someone with a more wieldy weapon.
You can't fight offensively with a short axe, you have to keep your distance, keep low because you can't parry attacks to your legs, and keep circling and feinting until the opponent makes a mistake and offers you a chance to come in with a killing blow. Every time you enter the opponent's measure you're at a significant risk of getting stabbed so you better make sure you only enter on your initiative and stay out of the opponent's stabbing range otherwise (so circle the opponent just outside of it and step back if he comes in until he starts to overextend).
@@JerehmiaBoazwith just a short axe against a sword, i mostly agree With a short axe against a dagger, i mostly disagree Against a sword but with shields on both sides? I will try my best to be close enough to lick you 😊
When fighting with an axe, 'recovering to a ready position' isn't generally the optimal choice after you 'miss'. If you hit them with the haft of the axe instead of the blade, that means you have a hook on them. You're better off moving to manipulating them than recovering to a position to let them do anything in the next action.
Viking and Saxon war axes were pretty light headed but with a relatively wide cutting edge. They were not a tool. I think with a modestly longer haft wrapped in boiled leather or rawhide would be quicker to recover from a miss. With the leading point on the blade I think they could thrust to some extent and the trailing “beard could hook legs , shields and swords to some effect. I agree that the sword was/ is a superior weapon but in the old days they were expensive and relatively uncommon among ordinary people. Seaxs and axes were popular because of economics and the fact that they were easier to make. Many warriors were only part time fighters and not very well trained. House Carls and other more or less professional soldiers were more likely to have swords and the training to use them.
I'll add one more thing. From personal experience, I was dismembering a dead goat carcass for the dogs (we found him cold so not great for human consumptiion) and I didn't want to get my good gear dirty or spend more time on it than I could, so I on a whim picked up the rustiest, dullest wood axe lying there, a short one. I was amazed at how well it chopped through flesh and bone, in a way other bladed tools don't when they're in ill repair. So there's definitely something to axes in practice.
I sparred a few months ago with a heater shield and an (blunt) axe similar to the one Matt shows here (maybe a slightly smaller axe head), versus a sword and heater shield in modern hema gear. (I wanted to experiment with axe-hooking etc). And in short it just didn't work out, at all! I am a quite competent fighter but I just couldn't use my axe in any competative way. The axe was light enough, but just because I couldn't risk knocking my opponent's mask in I needed to slow down a little bit, yet the axe felt quite flexible at first. But dude! my opponent just effortlessly and casually ran rings around me with his sword. Tapping and attacking me at will. I had absolutely no chance even though he did take it easy as well. It was hilariously onesided. It did leave me to believe that the axe, when used for war in this match up would needed to be used quite heavy handed and forceful or be at a severe disadvantage. Making it unsuitable for our sport context. It was a big eye opener for us.
I agree with the assesment. We have to give up some mentalities of combat for the sake of saftey. Safety first! We dont want to seriously injure our sparring partners, but then we lose the mentality of combat and warfare where you should be exceedingly agressive and violent. I definitely agree the axe is a more agressive weapon, you should be getting in really close fast and hitting hard, but that is an extreme risk to sparring partners.
@@Armchair.extraordinaire-bo5mv early historical warriors do not agree with you. There are many examples of fighting axes in periods that do lack armour. There is a huge difference between a tool-axe and a fighting axe as well.
When it comes to the tomahawks in the Americas and difficulties in their use (as a native that does reenactment/living history and martial arts here and there) it really depends on the axe, a trade hawk from the French is going to behave differently than a Missouri war axe, which will also be different than an Apache hawk, etc etc. the weights, handle types, blade thickness and all will dictate that. But if I had to say if one was to have the advantage over the dirk or Bowie it would be the Missouri, if fact I think you you have your axe maker friend make you one, you would not be disappointed. It’s jokingly described by one of my HEMA friends as the Dane axe of the Mississippi
it happened at Stamford Bridge when the two Kings met. What I am interested in is it possible that a Berserker did this. I am not addressing Etain when I ask you sir I have watched plenty of reenactments and find most of your videos interesting. I feel silly asking but have you considered reenacting that part of the Battle. Maybe even experiment with different weapons. But seriously if I was capable of demonstrating that a man really could defend a bridge or not. As all your friends have good knowledge of weapons it would help prove myth or not as well I hope be fun for you guys. I know I wish I could go on reenactments as I love learning about history and what it felt like to walk in their shoes as it were.
There was a video on Norse axe skills. Especially with a bearded axe is that can hook on a shield and pull it away. This also goes for hooking on to a sword and pulling it away.
There’s always exceptions-I’d recommend looking more into historic spike tomahawks. They averaged around ~8-10 oz (~250 grams), head and handle. A big knife of equivalent length winds up weighing more-requires much more steel for such a long edge. So historic spike tomahawks are faster and more nimble than knives of equivalent size, and they achieve maximum effect at maximum reach. I make tomahawks with chopping edges at just 1-3/8” long, and these easily bury into pig heads with arm motion alone. A big knife at equivalent reach is either raking the tip or inflicting a shallow stab-sure that’s having an effect on target, but not nearly as effective as a chop through the skull. The spike side of a spike tomahawk also opens up options for when targets get inside the arc of the chop-a simple twist and retraction can pull the spike into the opponent-the tomahawk becomes a meathook on a stick. Great videos-I always enjoy your content.
speaking from a early medieval reenactment context, i've been fighting with and training people use an axe for just over a decade and the thing that i've learned the most with axe over sword fighting, is that the axe fighter really has to think ahead in the fight, you really have to think two or three steps ahead and you have to work your opponent into the position you want to make the best strike, because as you rightly say, your area of hit potential is way smaller than a sword, so you need to use the axes advantages to move your opponent to where you want them. As i say i'm only speaking from an early medieval context, so axe and shield, i can't speak for later periods but i imagine the principles remain the same. just my 2 pence
I expected you to say something about options too. With the axe, or at least most axes, you must swing and hit with the small striking area against your target area, giving relatively limited movement. With a longer blade you usually have a lot more options: tip cuts, draw cuts, thrusts, swing, chop, and you can also arguably defend easier: there's more to deflect, parry, and block with while also still presenting a danger to the opponent. Feints are also easier, as you can redirect a blade far faster and easier than with the swinging momentum of the axe.
Bruce and de Bohun faced off in what became a celebrated instance of single combat.[14] Bohun charged at Bruce and, when the two passed side by side, Bruce split Bohun's head with his axe.
For context, the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian army in WWI re-introduced the "fokos" as a trench-warfare weapon. Appearantly it enjoyed an advantage over long blades (bayonets, assault knives attached or not) and similar things and after some years of fighting, there wasn't a significant difference between the Italian, Russian and Hungarian conscripts' skills.
It wasnt about axe, but about tactical position (narrow bridge) and you were high on mushrooms. Btw. that accident on Stamford bridge when you killed 40 english men is probably myth, not historical fact.
That's what I was thinking when Matt brought up push/pull cuts. Sure, a sword could probably handsaw some damage onto someone, but an axe with a decent beard or point (actually, like the one he was demonstrating!) could help you get control of their body.
Before I say anything I would like to state that I am by no means an authority on axes, melee combat, nor historical combat. It seems to me that axes would serve a totally different purpose in combat than a sword or a dagger would and to some extent would have different goals in terms of combat. From my limited understanding of the armored and shielded eras of combat, swords were primarily a weapon for the elite and occasionally back up weapons for archers, whereas axes would be more common in the melee along with weapons like spears. In a crowded space like a battlefield, it would make sense to me to have a weapon of variable reach like an axe that can be used to grapple shields and limbs as well as making lethal attacks. A sword (once again 0 experience in HEMA or any other relevant experience/knowledge) seems that it would struggle in the chaos of a close quarters brawl that I imagine the front line would be in. On a separate note, a sword's battlefield tactical philosophy seems to be to wound an adversary enough to disable them or prepare them for a lethal blow whereas an axe would be to get the adversary's weapon or shield out of the way or to grapple the opponent in order to prepare for a lethal blow. In short, an axe seems like it is made to be focused on the final strike where a sword would be more balanced towards wounding the enemy throughout combat.
I do viking reenacting and when first starting out we have to use axes. I prefer the short axe because while my range is limited, I can more easily disarm my opponent with an axe, or pull his shield out of the way. Love my axe (her name is Sigrid)
I was gonna say… I enjoy this channel’s content and find them very informative, but he has a tendency to reiterate the same statements over and over just to arrive at a point that was essentially covered 2 minutes in
Long time instructor of MA and various weapons here. I would love to see you do a series of vids on day to day defensive weapons. Especially my dear Eastern European shepard's ax. I love them.
For a sword, the center of percussion, or that part of the sword that would contact your opponent when you’re trying to cut them, is as small as the cutting edge on any axe.
yes, though the point is that even when striking with parts that are not the center of percussion, the sword will still do enough damage to create a wound. Possibly a debilitating one. This is also not figuring in push and draw cuts.
Yeah, I've gotten my first sharp sword a week ago (a Cold Steel Gladius Machete), and the borders are almost useless to cut from outside the target, only the edge is useful for cutting. The thrust is devastating though, and the borders help cut very well from inside once you have penetrated a target. Wasn't sure if it was because my blade isn't sharpened enough or not. Tried on empty bottles. The edge is still the size of my hand, so it's still usable, but I admit I'd like to have it cut with the borders too.
A truly devastating cut requires the blade and target to be at 90 degrees to each other as well. With a rounded axe head, all hits are 90 degrees, which is why shields were also rounded. It makes them terrifying against unskilled and unarmored opponents, though a draw cut from a sword against some poor villager would also have been devastating. 99 ways to die.
Did a bit of HEMA, used both axe and a sword. The Axe was fun, but lacked the versatility of the sword. The one advantage I was able to find with the axe, it is useful for hooking and pulling. Pulled a few shields down and Dane Axesz which allowed those in my formation to hit the target. Did leave me exposed, however.
I'd guess this is somewhat mitigated against better armour in that swords and knifes really need to hit some kind of opening whereas that poleaxe is going to ruin an opponents day no matter where you hit them. Armour being basically invulnerable to blades but certainly not against a pick or hammer.
even then they aren't the anti-armour weapons that people believe they were. Like a guy in full plate could take multiple hits with a hammer before surrendering
yes, but if you use an axe as a tool daily you get very conferrable with the distance and edge alignment. some free training there you would not get with a sword ;)
A woodcutting axe and a battle axe are different enough that I don't think the cross training is specifically helpful. Using a woodcutting axe will help you with edge alignment and grip strength and some swinging mechanics, but I think those apply equally to combat swords and combat axes. I don't actually have combat experience with an axe though, only woodcutting and swordfighting experience, so maybe I'm missing something.
Well a baseball or tennis ball moves pretty fast and most don’t have much difficulty learning how to hit them with the meat of the bat or racket so 🤷🏽♂️
@@dgoodman1484 projectiles move in much more predictable ways than people, and also aren't trying to hit you. I think there's a lot less complexity to be worrying about in those sports.
What are your thoughts on weapons like the Nepalese kora or the Congolese ikakalaka? It seems that they could have the best of both worlds: they hit hard like an axe toward the distal end, but they're bladed all the way down so they can still cut if you hit closer to the hand.
Lynn Thompson has done some great videos demonstrating tomahawks/axes. He mentions using the top of a spiked hawk like a T to block and parry as well using the beard to hook and control. This doesn’t fix the blade length issue but does point to some options a long blade may not have. (pun intended)
Quick Question: I would totally agree when we talk about 1 on 1 combat. - But - for my understanding (which actually is limited)- it is a different thing on a battlefield when you have to take amor into account. As far as I understand Swords or Daggers are not very good against armor (not talking about thrusts since the video is only comparing slashes). I always thought swords had not enough mass to have an effect on armor and that the edge would be seriously damaged when repeatedly hitting shields or armorparts....?
Another consideration is the hooking/draw cut aspect of a bearded axe. I’ve heard that they were used to stab/cut should your swing go long and to pull shields off line to set up a second strike.
Everything you said is generally true, but I think you overestimate the "difficulty" in using an ax. I say this because in the past hand tools were used daily by most people. So while the ax certainly has challenges to its use, vast numbers of people would be somewhat to very accustomed to its use. Before the use of gas, oil, and electricity for heating and cooking, nearly every household had a hatchet or machete around the world to make kindling and many had axes for firewood and other tasks. In the "First World" we've forgotten how common their use was just a hundred years ago. While generally not moving targets, the value of muscle memory from thousands of swings a year can not be overstated. Of course, this applies to swords and knives as well as common agricultural tools like flails and scythes. Based on a couple of machete fights and machete vs. hand sickle that I've seen in the past, it seems that attacks come fairly naturally to wielders but counters take at least a moment to begin to figure out. In the few life and death fights I saw, the man with the better defense won or was less injured. Side note: the percentage of fights that ended with both opponents seriously injured and bleeding is astonishing. In several cases I know of both fighters died within the week from blood loss and infection of injuries readily addressed by timely modern medicine. Others lost considerable use of one or more limbs.
I'm not sure if I dare to ask where you've seen those fights, but i will ask: No shields, right? Maybe we should differentiate countries by time on purpose ^^ There are surely parts of the world, that still are living like in the olden. I'm kinda happy cause of the reminder that I could experience quite a bit of it, our mountain hut in Eastern Tyrol w/o electricity (but at least reachable by dirt road), rural parts of Thailand were the 60s (except the majority of vehicles) were obvious, the sad greyness of Culloden Muir or the windy emptyness of Land's End. Thanks for reminding me, that the World is beautiful still 🥲
@@AND-od5jt I was in the rural Philippines and the men involved were farmers, not professional fighters. Because of the usefulness as an all purpose tool and because of the poor law and order situation, men wore their bolos[machetes] every time they went to the fields[mostly paddies] outside the village. Disputes generally involved liquor or jokes poorly taken. In several cases the men were relatives or best friends. Some of the fights lasted less than a minute. The winner was generally full of remorse and turned themselves in. The longer the fight lasted the greater the chance that others could intervene.
I think this is the real reason "Vikings" used axes. No one remembers that there is no "Viking" people but that the Norsemen "went a vikingur" or went raiding, to "become" Vikings, or raiders. They were probably farmers, ship builders, and carpenters rather than professional soldiers. The purpose of the bearded axe was to allow the user's hand to support close to the blade for close-in woodwork like shaving. All the other ideas are romantic notions based in nonsense. So, they HAD the axes and were skilled with them. Similar to getting an arm chopped off by a Nepalese farmer, even today. They have kukris because they are useful tools that they use well. European battle axes and the men who used them were different entirely - they were designed for war, used with shields, and were used by skilled troops. I think having that skill and training is probably superior to even people who used axes daily and either of these groups of people would probably ruin a modern, flabby Westerner's day.
@@clintonm2357 What about the shroomers -- aka berserkers -- when was the warrior "elite" formed? The problem of re-integrating warriors after long campaigns is as old as war (and imo Romans dealt with it quite well, giving their veterans parcels of land to settle)... *stops the decent into the rabbit hole*
Love the video. just a thought here... If you're a woodsman or somebody who used to using an ax... Your brain targeting system is going to be way better, right off... So I can completely understand how an axe could be a more difficult weapon for beginners, But for the farmer or the woodsman, it might be the right choice, even for their first battle, because they're used to it. For me, here in texas, of course, we love our guns and blades.Etc... I own rifles and amount them an AR15...But i've probably used my shotgun more than anything, because i've been bird hunting and taken thousands of shots at moving targets... Even though an AR fifteen might be a better choice for some situations like more than two or three people.... I'm so used to my shotgun. Hitting moving targets, reloading on the move quickly...I might would choose it, And it might be a better choice, as long as I didn't have too many enemies in front of me. The point is the things we think are difficult, like throwing a tomahawk... That might be the simplest and best thing for somebody who's done it from the time they could walk on.... I guess what i'm trying to say is the best choice of weapon depends on who's using it?
I mean it's "just" hand-eye coordination. That's coming with practice, same as in tennis or badminton, you'll relatively quickly adapt to the length and where to strike.
Im from the Austrian mountains and used axes to process firewood and bigger ones to split logs from the day I was just physically able to do so - so I do not really see Mats point - you have to aim the ax head to hit where you want- yes, indeed - but that just comes natural after years of wood work
I have a lot of experience using differents weapons in combat. The biggest problem of the axe is if you are fighting longer weapons like swords or spears you get hit 10 times before you are able hit one time. Also they fatigue you more because your arm is forced more mantaining defense stance or launching blows. The edge lenght is the smallest problem in a real combat. Most of times you hit with the tips of the weapons because you instinctly use the maximum range to get more safety. And an axe when hits, hits harder than other weapons. If you are using a poleaxe, halberd or dane axe you are on a big advantage to someone equiped with sword, again just by the length of the weapon. No matters how precise and damaging can be the sword on close combat if I hit you 10 times before you reach me. You can see hundreds of depictions from different periods with swords being a secondary weapon stored in the baldric while they use lances, spears, pikes or poleaxes. Have a short edge may be even the only advantage of the weapon, because the design of short blade and a heavy and concentrated head increase the penetrating damage on impact.
As a layman, I'd like to express my thoughts: 1) Axes were (and are) obiquitous. Easy to produce, and up to the modern age, every farmstead had several in their posession. People were used to using them.. It was an everyday tool. 2) Axes were not used in 1:1 combat in pitched battles. They were a readily available weapon by the rank and file troops, at no extra cost to the bearer. In the medieval times usually non-warrior people were either summoned by a lord or hired for money. They were not used by people trained in combat-at-arms. And if Richard III proves that, then it's just another sign of that he wasn't succumbed by ordinary troops. Which, in itself, would have been a revolutionary discovery. 3) If you're a rank-and-file soldier in the medieval times, you are (hopefully) standing side by side with at least 10-20 people on both your sides, and many behind. And, as you have pointed out before, with a shield. So, the disadvantage of not being able to swing your axe around rapidly dimishes. You have an axe and a shield. You know how to use both. You're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with your regiment. As long as you're not left alone, it's a good deterrent. Was it inefficient? Yes, compared to what must have been elite weapons at the time. Was it economical? Yes, as you could get thousands of troops who were already familiar with how to use it, and they had their own. This is still a period where everyone had to equip themselves. (edit: most troops had to supply their own uniform and gear up until the 20th century. And is some ways, still do, if what they want is not standard issue).
I often hear people citing this idea of "It was a widely available tool", but the thing is that an axe intended for war is *not* a tool. A battle axe, or any other axe (terminology being what it is) intended to be actually used in combat has a blade far thinner than an axe intended for chopping wood. If you took a battle axe to a forest to do some chopping, you'd be mangling the blade, and it'd suck for that task anyway, being light and simply not meant for it. And if you took a normal woodcutting axe to the battlefield, you'd be swinging around an unwieldy, overly heavy thing. Which, obviously, did happen (plenty of people have been forced to use tools as weapons), but is by no means what you *want* to be happening. And before there's ten different people jumping on me shouting about how you could totally kill someone with a chopping axe, then yeah, obviously. You could kill a man with a rock or a pitchfork too. Neither is intended to be a weapon, and both are suboptimal. It's the same for a normal, everyday common use axe. I'm merely pointing out that this conceit that a battleaxe was interchangeable with a common tool (which goes both ways; I often see people claiming that carrying a battleaxe would mean you'd also have a good tool for various tasks you needed to do on the side, which is roughly as smart as saying the same thing about a sword), and that it was widely available as an utility thing, is false. Axes were ubiquitous. Axes *intended* to be used as weapons were not (no more than any weapon of war was, I mean).
@@goblinrat6119 Even bad pizza is still pizza. What I mean is, whether an axe is made for chopping wood or for warfare, getting hit with either one will accomplish the goal - you'll be maimed or dead either way.
Since we're standing so tightly packed together in rank and file *imagining the nice description* that we can hardly swing... I think I'd prefer a spear (or a very light pitchfork/trident, which I know to use too, since I fish every lent) :D p.s.: I'd say the Swedish regular (non mercenary) troops of the 30 years war introduced uniforms, but mid 17th century french at latest. (I'm not willing to count "just capes" of some Habsburg regiments in the 16th, although those already had rank insignia)
@@John-ir4id Exactly as I said, yes (and acknowledged this would be brought up, too). Point being, I think there is a misunderstanding of what a dedicated weapon of war like a battle axe is, often. When we're talking about why people wielded axes in war, saying that people had chopping axes available really does not cover it
I do a full contact LARP (Belegarth) and we hit each other with foam weapons. Very often the part of our foam weapons that we have to replace is the tip. I just had to repair a 34" sword and the only part of the foam that was *really* in need of repair was ~6" of the tip. I'd say it's very common that we're able to consistently fight with the tips of our weapons. With that frame of reference I think that someone who trains and fights with an axe would have no problem consistently fighting and striking someone with the pick or blade of an axe.
Recently one of my HEMA buddies brought one to training and fought against a spadroon user with it while using a dagger in his off-hand. Now, he wasn't trained to use that weapon and lost most rounds because of that, but it became clear that the longer reach and better hand protection of his opponent were crucial advantages. It would be the same for sabers, I imagine. However, if a more capable person was able to consistently pull the opponent's weapon or arm to the side with the axe, things might look differently.
The tomahawk would be at some disadvantage if you're talking about unarmored single combat between the two & don't include throwing. With throwing in the mix, the tomahawk possibly has the advantage if the wielder can throw well & they start far enough apart.
that's kind of a tricky question because it really, REALLY depends on who's using what weapon, more so than usual. Outside of the cavalry, most european officers really didn't bother training to use their swords, they were just something to gestured with in combat for emphasis. The reality of european style warfare at the time was officers are there to give orders, if he has to actually fight sword in hand everything's gone terribly wrong so how well he can use that sword is pretty irrelevant.... Obviously you will find exceptions, but that's the general attitude most armies had contrast that to the natives who, more often than not, had a fairly strong warrior culture that put emphasis on feats of individual bravery, meaning the average tomahawk user is probably going to be fairly proficient with it. If he's going to war he's expecting to get his tomahawk dirty at some point, so odds are really good he's a better individual fighter than the guy with the saber If you're asking of a technical level, the saber is hands down a better weapon design for combat. That's kind of just a fact, the saber is one of the best sword designs out there and that's not really up for debate. If you're asking how the two matched up in practical terms you'd probably be hard-pressed to get a clear cut answer from historical sources. despite being technologically inferior, the tomahawk was likely more often in the hands of the more skilled user, leading to a rather murky conclusions.
this is something i noticed in the new Half Sword playtest physics based game. you really had to consider where the “area of concentrated force” is on a weapon, cause too close and something like an axe or a mace becomes much less effective. And conversely you often see draw cuts being really useful when you get really close with swords. A tradeoff being that those concentrated force bits can often hit way harder in terms of pure concussive force. of course the game isn’t wholly realistic, but it made me apreciate a lot of the basic bio-mechanics in fighting. you should check it out Matt, its a really interesting experience. it also really made me appreciate how different degrees of armor effect how you engage others. (also don’t confuse the playtest with the demo like I did!)
You forgot to mention the favorite of my ancestors.... the bearded axe. It increases the cutting and striking area and makes deflecting edged weapons more effective. Also allows you to strike in more upward and sideways angles without missing and just hitting someone with a stick as you say. Also the handle would be resin dipped and wrapped with thick hide to weather proof and prevent damage to the handle.
The advantages of an Axe over a Sword must often come down to cost and availability. Plus, there is evidence that Axes are more intimidating. Were I in full plate, I'd be far more worried about that big spike on the back of that Axe than I should be by that Sword.
Also their utility and ease of repair. The way I see it, axes tend to be more used by cultures that raided, since they're good against basically all armors that can be put on quickly, any strikes that actually land are more likely to put an opponent down than a sword could since bone doesn't really stop an axe, can be used to cut ropes, branches, etc. and anything else that might need to be cut when approaching or escaping, and their main breaking point is on the shaft, and that can be relatively easily replaced if you've got basically any type of wood.
@@TeronRedoran Plus, you really only need high-grade steel for the edge, again saving on cost. And you can make hundreds of Axe heads in the time it takes to make a sword. Also, as you touched upon, an Axe has other uses other than as a weapon.
honestly i think most people overlook the fact that most of the people in a given battle aren't, in fact, wearing heavy armor. Most people are relying primarily on a shield for defense and probably some padded armor, or in later periods mail. Axes are actually very good at dealing with all three. The extra percussive force and cutting edge of an axe will hack through a shield far, far easier than a sword, it will cut deeper into things like gambesons, and can more easily injury a person if it doesn't break the armor. If you're going into a battle knowing most of the people you'll be fighting against are foot militia..... yeah, an axe is a pretty damn good choice. Especially if you've got a spike on the end for dealing with the more heavily armored opponents you may run into. This is especially true if you happen to be one of the people in the shield line and not a noble in heavy armor. So yeah, people just kind of assume axe is the cheaper options, but that's not really the case. Axes actually have a lot of inherent advantages in the press of practical combat that swords often don't. If what you're expecting is to have to quickly bash your way through the shield of the dude right in front of you and get that one good shot in to drop him, which is the reality of most medieval combat until right up to the early renaissance period, the axe is a really good option. this, i think, is the primary reason why axes have been so popular for so long all over the globe
Setting aside the specialized uses of fighting axes where they would perform well, part of the reason that one might tend to think of axes as "simple" or "easy to use" in fighting might actually be because they would have been more common among the general populace. It seems to me that medieval villagers would be quite likely to have axes on hand and practice using them- swords and the like, not so much. I also imagine that, historically, axes would have been comparatively cheap, familiar, and easy to make for an average smith as opposed to other weapons whose production would be more specialized. Ergo, if you're putting together an army, maybe save the swords for more seasoned or elite troops, let the peasants go to it with the axes and other tool-based arms. So axes wouldn't necessarily be "easy" to be effective with in fighting, but "easy" to put in someone's hand (especially if the bosses are not up for investing time and money in the conscripts). Thanks for the insights!
Very good point here- especially in earlier cultures where warriors were still mostly part-time, your average fighting man likely didn’t get much time to practice with spears or swords, but they used their axes all the time for any number of routine tasks. When you swing your axe a hundred times a week, you know how it behaves, and you know how to make it do what you want it to do. Familiarity with your equipment is a huge advantage, possibly enough to cancel out the benefits of reach or the handicap of slightly trickier considerations of measure.
Nice to see you again, Matt! I thought I'd just mention something you might find interesting: In regions of Europe abutting the Steppe, like Poland, Hungary, Croatia etc., (not forgetting the Byzantine Empire), the cavalry axe was used as a secondary weapon by cavalry, along with the lance, estoc, sabre, bow-or pistol. Its main use was cracking the opposition's helmets. Just a little FYI.
You can do two melee "tricks" with an axe, that you can't do with a sword. 1. Experienced fighters often step into the swing of an opponent. This make the swing not reach maximum speed and force, and you get hurt less. This is really effective against someone inexperienced with an axe, since you don't get hit with the sharp and heavy part of the weapon. But if you're trained with an axe, and someone step into your reach, you can use the axe as a hooking device, or to gain extra strength and momentum, to make a more effective bodythrow. I never used a sword, only local, traditional, machete like, knifes (bondkniv), so maybe the momentum thing would also work with a heavier sword, but I would guess not as well. 2. I never been in an actual melee using an axe as a weapon myself (only against opponents using axes), so I don't know how well this work in the real world: If you quickly loose the grip on your axe while swinging it, it will still travel forward with enough force to do some damage. So while your opponent is busy parrying, step out of the damage zone, or taking the blow, you get a small amount of time to e.g. increase your distance, rebalance, switch to another weapon, or deal with another enemy. It's something in between swinging an axe, and throwing an axe, at someone. I've only trained trick n:o 2 as a kid, and you really need to train it to make it work, even against a dummy. I've used trick n:o 1 in real street fights, with improvised melee weapons, not an axe, but it worked really well. I don't know if this is a more modern combat style. My home town had/has? this ad hoc melee combat "system". Some parts of it goes back to at least the 18th century, but I don't know if some parts goes even further back. I didn't learn to use this "system" systematically. Other kids, and more rarely adults, tought me the general principles, and showed me different tricks to use, or combination tricks that they knew worked well with some other trick they had seen me using.
The longer I live here, the more I'm realising that this region of the world is deeply, deeply weird and I've just been sheltered from it because I've only lived in a couple of large cities.
The reality is that a fighter that has trained to fight with an axe for many years know all the strengths and weaknesses of his weapon and he will make sure to fight in ways that will take advantage of the strengths and cover up/avoid the weaknesses. And when someone that has almost only have trained with all kinds of swords and only for sport tries to comment on axes, he tens to show his lack of knowledge on how to fight with axes and what the real strengths and weaknesses are. Like overestimating how hard it is to learn exactly where you have the edge of your axe and how to use it in different situations to hit exactly where and how you want to hit When fighting against someone that is well trained with his axe is it very far from easy to time it correctly if you try to step into an axe swing that might be a real swing or it might be a faint. And even if you time it correctly, you might find yourself in new trouble because your axe wielding opponent has already expected you to step into it when doing the swing and in reality made a trap for you. To step into an axe swing is asking for getting grappled and thrown onto the ground and it doesn't help you much if you have control on the axe when a dagger/knife is on the way to end your life. And as you say, can he very well half throw the axe as you try to step in before he grabs you and push/throw you on the ground. Stepping into an axe swing is extremely more dangerous against a skilled axe fighter than Matt seems to think it is. Most likely because Matt in general focuses on swords and training with swords. Also because it is close to impossible to train in a realistic way in HEMA with an axe.
As a rule, throwing a weapon is never a good idea, mostly because the flight path is obvious and sidestepping it is pretty easy. There are cases where that makes sense, of course, and the tomahawk is known for being thrown as much as it's used as a melee weapon. It is true that throwing your weapon is good if you want to buy yourself a few seconds or disrupt a charge, and if you're going to throw a weapon, I'd prefer to throw an axe rather than a sword. There's only one way (point-first) to throw a sword with any effectiveness, but I can think of three different good ways to throw an axe (head-first, vertical spin, horizontal spin).
@@Duiker36 I think the term he was looking for was 'casting' not throwing the axe. If you start your swing with a loose grip on the axe and your grip at the base of the blade of the axe, the head with travel forward and you can tighten your grip when the head of the axe hit's the desired 'range'/when your hand gets to the end of the axe haft. This is not an easy thing to do but it is something to practice and is attainable. The complexity is compounded by the edge alignment being able to turn in swing...again not a simple thing to do, it's something to train. Imagine a two handed axe, you start by holding the axe in front of you with the left hand on the base and the right just below the axe head. As you swing, you loose your grip with the right hand and let it slide down close to your left hand so as the axe impacts the wood you are chopping, your hands end up together. While much easier with two hands, it's 'attainable' with one hand. That said, it is far easier to judge distance with your feet and eyes and have a solid grip on the axe in the first place.
I used a axe quite a bit in my early SCA days. Because opponents are used to blocking a sword not something with an overbite, I would often be able to strike them with a telling blow that wouldn't have hit with a sword. As shield blocking became more dynamic, the advantage went away and I switched to a sword.
He said that Filipino martial arts uses sticks to simulate bladed weapons. No, they will take the 2 sticks and use them as a primary weapon and beat the crap out of their enemy with them.
Gosh, 13 minutes talking about "Swords can cut with most of the blade, axe has small blade, so axe hit needs to be precisely with that small blade to deal real damage, yes it's more damage, but if you miss, it is almost no damage at all" thank you. 6 minute video would be more than enough to explain that...
@@cchavezjr7 We have many different weapons in our martial arts. Twin sticks is just one. Edged weapons are pretty common, but since we're poor, we typically use the same bamboo/rattan sticks for training for long knife/machete as we do for stick fighting. To an outsider looking in, it might look like we only train in stick fighting.
@@temperededge I'm well aware of what it all entails. I'm making a joke how he said that sticks are stand ins for bladed weapons when they are very much a weapon that's trained in and used.
Hand-clasping meme between glaives and axes, over "effective despite the limited strike zone." Honestly, I love axes, and this information just makes me want either A) a one-handed axe with a Guan Yu style beard, or B) KUKRAXE.
@@NeutralDrow There was that one garden which was a normal machete on one end, and the other was an axe. Two handles. Reviews said it wasn't very good at either job.
Saying that being hit by the axe shaft is same as being hit by a stick is still a bit of exaggeration - balance of the axe will make it much more injurious.
@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Well, no. Medieval clothing is thick. Especially when people know they are going to be fighting - that’s why daggers people carried for fighting out of armour had long narrow blades. Generally you’re going to leave a bruise which someone hyped up on adrenaline won’t even notice.
@@TheGreatAmphibian Thick clothing doesn't protect against a blow from sturdy stick used in both hands. The staff was one of the most common homicide weapons in late-medieval England. Some of the weapons classified as staves had sharp points, but some were simple staves. In any case, records show that many folks died from blunt trauma from staves. & the simple staff, without any sharp point, was a military weapon in Ming (& earlier) China.
It’s all a matter of contrasts. The shaft of an axe is much less effective than the head, or of the length of a sword blade. I’d rather not be hit by any of them but if I had my choice of those options (and “none” is not available) the shaft of the axe wins every single time. When you are trying to disable or kill and the person you are fighting has a similarly deadly weapon hitting with the shaft and then getting HIT with the head of an axe is a really bad day. All relative.
Im a hema practitioner, and one of the best illustrations of this point broadly is the video game Exanima. The game takes into account what part of the weapon hits the opponent, and the momentum of the strike. While I love axes and maces, they take a lot more precision impart much effect.
Excellent analysis. Thank you. Both my weapons are for different scenarios. The short Kopis for defending and jabbing at close quarters.I think with my Kopis short sword in my right hand and my Council Tool Wood Craft hand axe in my left hand I could do some serious damage against a person with a Viking sword. My Kopis is for defending against weapons strikes and close-in thrusting as well as hacking and the hand axe for close in hooking of others' weapons and hard striking at limbs (any), neck and head. Torsos are fair game if hitting the rib cage and/or spine. As a former. EMT I know where to aim. This would have been common knowledge of hand-to-hand combatants using iron weapons. Farmers would not have this knowledge drilled into the. and not have long hours of weapons practice. Best for them to flee. SPEED is the advantage of shorter weapons and must be used for success. A small shield on my left forearm would still work with that 19" hand axe.
As someone who chops a lot of wood to heat his home in the winter, this is so spot on. Especially once you start getting tired, it can be hard to make sure you hit the log with the metal part of the axe and not the wooden stick.
I made a billhook out of a beet hook (which is a short handled hooked knife), since I was a kid I had my dad weld the blade (which is fairly heavy, about 1/4 inch) to a shovel socket from a worn out shovel, and put that on a regular shovel handle, that proved sturdy enough to chop down trees, so if you use a heavy duty handle a poleax can be quite durable, but then it becomes heavy! Even now I sometimes miss with a sledge hammer (and hit with the handle), very annoying but more common the more tired you get! It's very easy to see why people didn't fight with big honking weapons, and for obvious reasons.
I think in close in fighting that you didn't touch on is you can shift your grip up and down on the shaft of the axe which is what makes it terrifying in a close quarter range where you'd be using knives. It was known that it was extremely hard to predict where the axe blows would actually be coming from. Watch tomahawk technique videos and stories of why frontiersmen were terrified of fighting guys who were skilled with the axe.
nice vid and interesting take, ive only very recently started the sport Buhurt and its interesting that at least in my club that axes are more common and preferred over an arming sword or falchon because of the fact that you can grab the shaft, again i understand that one is a sport and therefore has rules that must abide by, in the case of buhurt its that no stabbing or piercing strikes , but the axe allows for a swing to the head and then into a grapple and takedown.
Of all the peasant weapons, the one I personally find most dangerous is the two-handed sickle. There are sickles with blades so large that they look like a cross between a sword and a spear. One that I remember is the falx. There is a more modern variant called the billhook, which is essentially a sickle with a bit of a spear. I once used a sickle to defend myself from a dog, and even though I didn't have to hurt the animal, I felt that I might have the upper hand, so much so that the dog decided to run away.
I do a lot of Reenactment, and we use swords, and axes and spears other pole arms. We don't count hits in our system which hit with the haft of a pole weapon. This is almost never an issue with a one handed axe or mace, it occasionally happens with larger axes such as Dane axes but is only really frequent at all in trying to cut with glaives or halberds, long pole arms. The bigger deal with hand axes is catching the handle when it is swung at you.
Well that and head weighted weapons are almost always shorter than swords and slower to change direction so feints are harder riposting is harder combinations are harder.
Thanks for this video. I also wonder if it is easier or at least more likely to be able to parry an attack with a sword or large knife/dagger. The longer metal edge would be part of that, but also the weight balance might make it easier to redirect a sword to parry an attack.
mel gibson in patriot showed us the whirlwind style of using a combo of a hatchet/tomahawk and a big knife/short sword in a close combat situation....also in east europe in the olden days long knifes were considered swords and even butchers have had to have licence and pay fee for such devices, /mostly sheep/ shepards used for selfprotection against wolves, wild dogs and even bears "shephards axe" oftens a longer walkingstick /about from ground to users navel/ with a quick takedown axe head, it is also a symbol of defiance by famous slovakian highwayman juraj janosik
@4:40 Matt Easton speaks of those that practice forms of martial arts, specifically close quarters combat. I my self am a re-enactor (AMTGARD) and we use a multitude of lengths for our weapons or boffers and primarily these are “short” swords. What he is saying about range is entirely accurate. Just because we aren’t killing anyone doesn’t mean our game of tag has no relationship to really striking someone. 24-36 inches of stick, or sword, is still 24-36 inches. Now, in AMTGARD (google this for curiosity) we use various types of foam for our padding but mostly these are cylinders, so we generally strike at angles that a sword cannot and will not work (the edge does the damage) but we do have innovative weapon makers and many have created very effective axes. These tools hook shields, swords, pole arms, and legs. AXES are effective. And yes we have large battles with shield walls and sieges against fortifications (sometimes with trebuchets or catapults).
When I was younger and hitchhiking back and forth between Connecticut and Arizona every year from 1984 to 2001 I would make a fighting"tool" of some sort, the last one I made was from 2 of those hay cutter blades and a piece of bed frame each triangular blade had 2 serrated edges and the flat part that was riveted to the cutter frame so I took a couple of bolts washers and nylon threaded lock nuts cut the bed frame at about a foot cut the corner in half because I wanted flat not angle drilled my 2 holes and made a tomahawk
A longer axe or hammer has the advantage of having a lot of blocking and pushing power, can create range, and will have some concussive force even if you miss with the head - which is probably why it was a primary weapon. But a sword will almost always wound an unarmoured person. However, if you're facing armoured opponents, swords also have a disadvantage (that's of course why they developed thin thrusting blades to get into weak points) but there, the long poleaxe or even the single handed axe might have an advantage if you hit. But as you say, as a weapon on it's own, axes do come with a lot of difficulties and require training. Now, if you're a farmer accustomed to chopping wood or something like it, you may have an advantage because you're used to wielding the axe and estimating range. Anyway, great video, I enjoy your stuff!
Getting struck by any heavey arm will hurt, and disorient.Fully armed up ,No sword has the power of any type of pole-arm.Power to thrust Ratio. Happy New Year,Walker
I think some of the reason they're popular is that they're probably easier to make than a sword. The other reason is that the can be used for chopping wood when it is NOT time to kill people.
Is there a weapon that puts a penetrating spike (90 degrees from the blade) on the end of a sword? It would seem that eliminates the biggest negative of an ax, while retaining the anti-armor benefit.
Most the argument towards sword over axe seems to be biased largely in favor of slashing the way you've set it out. An instinctive predilection towards slashing to my mind seems to indicate most often a lack of control and inadequate training.
So would an offhand axe with something like a spear or an estoc be a viable setup? I ask because it happens to be a pretty meta setup in pvp for elden ring, and I always thought it looked kinda silly 😅 But hey, maybe it could work? Dominant hand for more dexterous purposes, and then the off-hand axe to throw haymakers with, or if someone has a shield, a clean strike gives you a handle attached to their shield. And I could see an axe being good to help catch a sword alongside your other weapon, so the right axe could help you grab/disarm a blade. This doesn't seem like much, but to my limited knowledge, most ways to disarm, grab, or parry a blade are usually pretty risky already, so a way to do that at length from your body sounds kind of practical, versus something like a hilt that's fashioned to catch a blade.
Axe vs Sword is hard to gauge, because real fights would be a lot more dynamic and blundery than re-enactment, because any armour that can be use to block a sword, would be used to close a gap by a stronger and or better armoured opponent. An axe swung hard enough can break a sword block a lot easier, an axe can be thrown, followed up with a dagger. If you are bigger, you may choose to shoulder someone and enter a brawl, hoping to knock em over and, axe, axe, axe, rather than elegant taps while standing. Formation fighting, a smallish axe could be good as any short weapon in confined space, but in combination with spears etc from your m8's behind. They where pretty popular for a reason :)
Great video....this reminded me of the Prince Oberyn vs Mountain fight on the GoT show....for most of it oberyn was making sweeping and swinging motions with his spear and the mountain was keeping his distance from them...but he didn't need to as he would just be hit with a long stick while wearing a full plate armor.
I have an axe to grind with this topic… 😑 I do wonder how the calculation of one good killing blow and then moving on to your next opponent factors in while using an axe. Certainly you can wind at a higher frequency using a knife or sword (using Matt’s argument), but in a pitched battle, might a blow that severely wounds when landed be better at times? I’m not looking to test it any time soon, but it Vikings and The Pirate Show could make the argument.
With axe+shield vs swird+shield wouldnt you want to get real up close, shield bash agressively, negate the swirds reach and flexibility advantage, and swing the ace around the shiels for one big disabling hit?
About the 'hitting at one point'...point. In sparring most of the more 'seasoned' fighters hit each other with the same point on the blade when we are in the 'fight'. When we do our best to hit our opponent with the center of percussion or the last few inches of the blade, it becomes 'normal' that you will only really connect within a two inch portion of the blade. This is an aspect of proper distance management and proper striking 'ability'. I will acknowledge the new students are all over the place in 'where' on the blade they make contact, but the advanced fighters are not really hitting with the meza when they intended to use the last few inches.
There’s a secondary reason why axes are hard to use: edge alignment. It needs to be closer to perfect than it does with a sword. If your edge alignment is slightly off with a sword, you’ll still cut, just not as well. However, the same degree of rotational error holding a axe haft can result in no cut at all. The reason is that the blade’s edge on an axe is further from the centre of rotation than on a sword. So some edge alignment errors are still effective with a sword that are not with an axe.
I'm a bit unconvinced about this, and I'll admit I have no experience with battle axes, but I did my share of cutting firewood with a wood axe, and missing edge alignment never seemed that much of an issue. If you get the aim right, it'll somewhat self correct. The weight of the head also helps push the head forward, even if it's a little sideways. It's got that momentum that's hard to stop. Maybe that's a bit different with a battleaxe that's lighter and thinner? I don't know I haven't tried that. Did try some cutting with a katana tho; there edge allignment feels really easy to mess up. I'm guessing because you have less of that weight and consequent momentum, so even a little bit of force to the side of the blade's enough to stop it. Also with a lot, or even with most swords you need to do more of a cutting motion rather than just a chop, which is more difficult.
@@SirConto oddly, the curved edge of the axe results in all hits being at 90 degrees, which transmit full power into the strike. Like you said, self-corrects. The long, flat blade of the poleaxe he brought out would take us back to the edge alignment issue.
One thing to remember with axes is that historically most people had experience wielding axes as tools and so had a lot of muscle memory for swinging them, so were better at hitting things with them!
Hitting a static object has absolutely nothing to do with trying to hit a person that's trying to avoid getting hit while also trying to kill you at the same time. The stress and adrenaline of a real fight to the death for someone who only ever used a non battle axe for chopping wood would have far more significant of an effect than the ability to hit a static object, which you can do with literally anything in any way you want, no problem.
@@bubbagump2341 I never said that, those are your words, not mine. I'm just saying what I stated in my comment. Which is that swinging a somewhat similar object to a weapon with the intent of chopping down other inanimate objects translate poorly to fighting. Might make you fitter and used to swing forcefully but that's about it, and can be achieved by numerous other jobs and tasks. Tool axes are only similar to battle axes in looks. They are handled and used in very different ways. Same could be said of someone who has trained to fight with a nimble battle axe but never in his life chopped down a tree or handled a tool axe, he would perform poorly at that task in particular and would only be familiar with a tool that looks similar but functions very differently.
Fought with axe and center grip shield quite a bit in the SCA although my primary fighting style was sword and board. It is, indeed, a pretty difficult weapon. There were few people using them and very few using them well. Based on my experience with the weapon, I don't agree that controlling the point of impact is really that big of a deal; it just isn't that much harder than trying to strike with the percussive portion of a sword. To that point, I can not recall it ever being a problem for me to put the head on target. In my opinion, this is somewhat of a red herring as an argument to the point that I was surprised that it was your central thesis. In my experience, the problem with axes is that it is difficult to get the hang of managing the momentum and power of the weapon efficiently. Range control is somewhat of an issue (they are generally shorter than swords), but not as much as many may think. That said, once you get control of the weapon down, there is a lot of stuff you can do with an axe that can not be done with a sword. Of the two, the axe is more difficult and intricate to use, while the sword is much more efficient and agile.
Доброго времени суток, уважаемый Мэт Истон. Спасибо за ваши видео! Смотрю вас из России и занимаюсь HEMA. Спасибо что не забываете о зрителях, что смотрят вас не из праздного любопытства как развлекательный контент. Желаю вам всего самого наилучшего в жизни и фехтовании, а каналу -- процветания!
I watched a video where you showed a sword that was not sharpened for a significant part of the base of the blade. Although I hear what you are saying, not all swords or knives are sharpened the whole length of the blade. Then there are thrust only swords that do not have an edge at all.
Your videos are really eye opening. I was wondering if you would do a video on the weapons of the Crusaders? I would like to see how weapons and armor changed from the 1st to the 3rd Crusade. What kind of Weapons were carried by Bohemond and Richard The Lionheart?
From what I remember from my fights with axes, it was mostly with a shield. If I am moving out of the shields safety to strike, it will be very intentional. Hitting the body, shoulders, even legs up close didn't seem very difficult. Now moving arms, the primary target when using a sword, those I would try to avoid with an axe if possible, unless the person was standing still for a second. This was with fairly long axes, something like 75cm.
People used axes as daily tools. Sword like tools were a thing. But less common. And one of the best advantages of a hafted weapon, used in on hand or two, is that if you miss with the ideal striking surface you can use the head to hook the enemy. Where as with a sword you just get a shallow ineffective cut, which might not even pass though structured clothing commonly worn by swordsmen.
"Fundamentally, an axe is a stick with a piece of metal on the end."
It's this sort of deep, biting analysis that keeps me coming back.
My favourite was "A sword or axe is more dangerous than a stick"
There are really only three melee weapons:
1. Stick.
2. Hitty thing onna a stick.
3. Sword.
@@ThisIsNotAUsername-v3o there are pointy things on sticks too. Which happen to be the most popular melee weapon ever.
@@timothyhouse1622 I put them under "Hitty thing onna stick", which may have been an oversimplification. *bubble pipe*
You forgot big metal boomstick.
I would just like to thank you for still being Matt Easton
For now, at least. Next time... who knows?
yes, it's very reassuring
Long may he continue to be!
That's very decent of you. May you also be yourself for quite a long time.
He looks like Matt. Matt has witnesses that he was somewhere else
I remember that the video game "War of the Roses" is the only game I've ever played that accurately depicted this. If you were using an axe or hammer as a weapon then you would have to make sure your swings weren't too close or you'd just hit them with the haft. It added an interesting difficulty to combat, but it also made me appreciate why no other game has tried to replicate it (that I know of).
man, that was a cool title
you could also reverse weapons with 2 heads to use either the cutting or the the hitting bit
also, as a rider you would deal much much more damage if your horse was galloping
The first Mount and Blade kinda did it too. Haven't played the latest one, so can't comment on that. But I recall that when using longer polearms, if you were right next to a guy, you wouldn't be able to do damage with your weapon. There was a certain minimum distance that you had to be in order to get the attack to connect. However, it's been years since I've played the game, so I might be misremembering that.
Some of the Dark Souls games simulated this to some extent. The damage weapons inflicted varied by where on the weapon's hitbox connected to the enemy and some of did more damage further out than others.
@@winedarkemperor Bannerlord does have the same kind of system; iirc, KC:D does, too
@@winedarkemperor Momentum matters in Mount & Blade. So it's not distance as much as how fast the particular part of the weapon is moving, if that makes sense. Essentially, the tip of the weapon always deal more damage as it has more momentum than the grip, and it takes in to account moving speed and rotational speed. So the good players would both move towards the target as well as spin in the direction the swing to impart the most damage. And counter to that, if you move away and spin in the opposite direction of the swing, then you do far less damage.
But can someone with a sword say to an opponent "let me axe you something" with the same effect? I think not.
😂
But he still can put his point trough.
swords man "Lets cut to the chase and get to the point"
Unless he speaks Old English or Middle English, in which case the word could be pronounced 'axe' no matter what weapon he was holding.
Well I mean he sworda could.
GoT Bronn: Do you know how to use that? Tyrion Lannister: l chopped wood once. No, l watched my brother chopping wood.
I saw you kill a man with a shield. You would be unstoppable with an axe.
@@aqufn8908as crazy as that was in the show, shields are actually relatively good weapons 😅
Primarily over the years I've found that not many people are willing to engage in combat when I've been holding an axe. :p For legal reasons I'm obviously joking, honest!
My whole life they have sold me on the idea that deterrence is pacifism, I suppose 🤷♀️
Never get your Chopper out in public.
i mean get off my land means alot more when you are holding an axe
Similarly, the TV Licence goons are so much more agreeable when I'm holding my gardening Bowie or my horticultural crossbow. Once, the letters ceased for 3 months! 💅✨
i had the same experience, but i was holding a gun ;)
Not many swordsmiths. Every town had a blacksmith. Every blacksmith could make axe heads. Every peasant conscript was well familiar with axes. Very few were trained with swords.
So for raising an army, axes were cheaper, used less resources, and were wielded more competently by conscripted woodsmen and farmers.
Thats a HUGE advantage to axes vs swords. The logistics alone could make the difference of victory in battle.
bro just use spears
@@lordbubax3929 right. And operate in a regimented phalanx, to keep the enemy from being able to close in where spears are useless.
You're talking about a well trained, standing army like the Legionnaires. Again, way more funding, resources, and training required.
So, going with your argument, the axe filled the same niche as assault rifles do today. A simple, reliable weapon that can be mastered in a timely manner. Whereas the sword and the bow required a lot of training, like a sniper's rifle.
@@sanjivjhangiani3243 It's not only about mastering it, because "mastering" swords for use in fight is not that much difficult (actually it's easier to learn the basics of sword fighting to do it at a moderately competent level than it is to be moderately competent at axe fighting, for the reasons discussed in this video).
The main factor behind the axe's popularity was that it was super easy to make.
"Axes and forks" are historically the weapons of the mass conscripts in feudal times, or the weapons of the revolting masses later; meaning, weapons that are easily built, and most times are already found in most agrarian households.
A duel is won by skill and weapon capability. Battles are won by logistics. Many an army was defeated by poor shoe quality, water contamination, or scarcity of equipment/lack of repairs.
I was just pointing out that the strengths/weaknesses of axes vs swords extends well beyond their use in a fight.
Very interesting video, especially for a Hungarian guy like me, as the first axe you are holding is very similar to the traditional shepherd’s axe (called “fokos” in Hungarian) what is a very traditional weapon in Hungary and countries around Hungary. The “fokos” dates back to centuries, usually as “poor men’s” weapon, or common, non noble people’s weapon. There are several things lead to have this shepherd’s axe developed and used throughout the centuries. First, it was easy and cheap to make. Only needed a little of the metal part, the head, and almost any blacksmith could make it. And even the cheapest ones were made off molded brass or bronze. They were really only last ditch weapons, and not much use as a tool. But the steel ones also were used as a tool.
The handle could made by any man, not needed any special skills. The handle of the shepherd’s axe usually made of several type of woods, always some kind of hard wood. The black locust brought to Hungary during the late 18th century to tie, got immobilize the sand of the Hungarian Great Plains. Also, turned out it is a great firewood, handle wood for tools, construction wood and also do not forget about the now “Hungaricum” “akác méz”, the black locust honey. Before this plant was available the oak, the hornbeam, the ash and especially the “dogwood” (Cornus mas, cornel, Cornelian cherry, European cornel or Cornelian cherry dogwood) was and is maybe the greatest handle material. It is virtually impossible to break, it is heavy and very hard wood (I know, I have some walking sticks from it for excursions and outdoor activities).
There were times when carrying weapons were strictly forbidden for non nobles. That period was when pocket knives, penny knives became common, and also, a special form of the shepherd’s axe. This version had no permanently fixed head on the handle. Its handle had different thickness at the two ends. Where the head was that end was thicker, and they put the head on the thinner end, and let the head slipping through the whole handle to the thick end, where it stuck - sometimes a firm hit on the ground helped the head stuck even more firmly - and it was good to go. During the everydays it was only a walking stick, the head was in the pocket, or bag (haversack, called “tarisznya” in Hungarian), and when it needed, it was place on and put it into action.
The shepherd’s axe (“fokos”) was symbol of several wars, revolutions as well. Hungarian revolution against the Austrian House of Habsburg’s troops (the “Labanc”) Hungarian freedom fighters (the “Kuruc”) used the “fokos” many times during the Rákóczi's War of Independence. But the “fokos” still found its way to the battlefield, even during the Great War, aka First World War, where Hungarian troops fought (usually used in the trenches as a melee weapon).
As for civilian use, the shepherd’s axe was very popular with animal herders, especially among pig herders (called “kanász” or “kondás” in Hungarian). Even there is a type of the “fokos”, which named after them, “kanász fokos” or “kanász balta” (“balta” is the term for small axe, or hatchet).
The type of the head could be several type. There were some with pointy, peak like side opposite to the edged side. These were clearly weapons only. I think these were called “Székely fokos”, the Székely people are a Hungarian ethnic group lives in Transylvania. There were also some with hammer like, flat side opposite to the edged side. These could be used as tools very well.
The pig herders didn’t carry much things with them, the “fokos” was their “EDC tool”, their tool hatchet as well. But also it made good use against wild animals - feral dogs, wolves for example - and bandits, outlaws (the typical Hungarian outlaw called “betyár”, and they were also among the users of the “fokos”). The shepherd’s axe, the “fokos” is deeply in the Hungarian culture. There was a dance, when two man, (many times the pig herders) did “symbolic fight” using the “fokos”. Also, Hungarian martial art, the “baranta” uses the “fokos” as a weapon of choice (beside the stick). Also, during traditional weddings the best man carries a “fokos” with (Hungarian national colored) ribbon around its handle what has written on the bride’s and bridegroom’s name, and the wedding’s place and date. Sometimes a simple stick is used instead of the “fokos”, but for the real traditional feeling the “fokos” is the right choice.
There are several blacksmith in Hungary who makes very nice replicas of the traditional shepherd’s axe, “fokos” nowadays. Some of them are modernized, some of them are made like a ceremonial grade piece of art, but some are made like the original ones, “the poor man’s best friend”. One of them is Ádám Thiele (nicknamed as “Bucavasgyúró”), I put some link for his works. Anyway, he has a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Mechanical Engineering and doing blacksmithing as a hobby, and experimenting and studying the old technics.
www.bucavasgyuro.net/home.html
Something that highlights this kind of interaction in practice is Dequitem’s armored fights with maces, axes, and other hafted weapons. The striking distance and wind up greatly affects how hard they can strike with the weapons. And he highlights that with a long sword, that you can thrust without much windup, especially with the different guards and stances.
It was fascinating seeing the collective narrative shift from swords being useless against armor and axes/maces being armor crushers to swords being a very capable weapons in armored combat and axes/maces being a bit more complicated to wield against another armored opponent. Something that’s not talked about or thought about much.
Mention is made in The Secret History of the Sword that a sword is not just for cutting or stabbing, but in its usage also becomes a club, since it can smash down hard on a target, like a baseball bat.
If you use one handed axe, you should have a shield in other hand - this will allow you to control how far is your opponent and hit him with correct part of the axe.
This
one-handed axes unlike certain swords like sabers just don't work that effectively on their own as a duelling weapon
The point of axe fighting is that you come in with a swing while using your shield to protect yourself. If the opponent steps in you have to break ground and step back because you're at a huge disadvantage with an axe if you start a pushing match against someone who can stab you. Fighting with axe and shield is keeping your distance, keeping low, circling, and feinting until your opponent gives you a chance to come in with a killing blow. If you get too close to your opponent without striking you're as good as dead.
@@JerehmiaBoaz agreed
I have read through the comments and no one mentioned it. Technically the lower part of an axe is not a stick, but a club. The weight on the end does not vanish into thin air.
It's a wretchedly bad club, the weight at the end moves the point of percussion near the far end, so hits from below the head are going to be inconsequential by itself.
@kelseylock3030, let me hit you with an axe handle. You can have armor and a sheild. Your not going to have a very good time good thing it will be a short time before the next blow comes by
Very good point
In fact that's a great point, because with the kinetic Force and the weight being concentrated at the head that means the point of impact is going to be significantly greater... So basically by you pointing this out you have eliminated his argument completely because he sang that a typical axe handle is going to act as little more than a stick that might bruise you or possibly break a bone but he's not factoring in is the weight of the head of the axe added to the motion of the downward swing or the side swing or whatever it's going to add significantly more kinetic power and it's going to do more than just a bruise or concussion it's going to cause a break or even possibly much worse...
A very light stick, it's supposed to be much lighter than the head.
Not only do you have to judge the distance more accurately to put the head of your weapon on your target, but with the majority of its weight out at the end of the shaft, if you miss, you have a greater amount of momentum that you have to cancel in order to recover your weapon to a ready position, so while you can get a greater impact when you hit, it's not going to be as fast as a blade, where the weight is more evenly distributed along the weapon's length. It may not be a _huge_ difference, but it's like the observation you made about the 1788 pattern heavy cavalry sword -- if it's heavier, or more unbalanced, you're going to be slower with it, and therefore at a disadvantage against someone with a more wieldy weapon.
You can't fight offensively with a short axe, you have to keep your distance, keep low because you can't parry attacks to your legs, and keep circling and feinting until the opponent makes a mistake and offers you a chance to come in with a killing blow. Every time you enter the opponent's measure you're at a significant risk of getting stabbed so you better make sure you only enter on your initiative and stay out of the opponent's stabbing range otherwise (so circle the opponent just outside of it and step back if he comes in until he starts to overextend).
@@JerehmiaBoazwith just a short axe against a sword, i mostly agree
With a short axe against a dagger, i mostly disagree
Against a sword but with shields on both sides? I will try my best to be close enough to lick you 😊
When fighting with an axe, 'recovering to a ready position' isn't generally the optimal choice after you 'miss'. If you hit them with the haft of the axe instead of the blade, that means you have a hook on them. You're better off moving to manipulating them than recovering to a position to let them do anything in the next action.
I agree. When I read the title of this video, I assumed that overcommitting and recovery would be the reason why axes are hard to use in combat.
Viking and Saxon war axes were pretty light headed but with a relatively wide cutting edge. They were not a tool. I think with a modestly longer haft wrapped in boiled leather or rawhide would be quicker to recover from a miss. With the leading point on the blade I think they could thrust to some extent and the trailing “beard could hook legs , shields and swords to some effect. I agree that the sword was/ is a superior weapon but in the old days they were expensive and relatively uncommon among ordinary people. Seaxs and axes were popular because of economics and the fact that they were easier to make. Many warriors were only part time fighters and not very well trained. House Carls and other more or less professional soldiers were more likely to have swords and the training to use them.
I'll add one more thing. From personal experience, I was dismembering a dead goat carcass for the dogs (we found him cold so not great for human consumptiion) and I didn't want to get my good gear dirty or spend more time on it than I could, so I on a whim picked up the rustiest, dullest wood axe lying there, a short one. I was amazed at how well it chopped through flesh and bone, in a way other bladed tools don't when they're in ill repair. So there's definitely something to axes in practice.
Always love a good chat about axes, Matt! Cheers!
I sparred a few months ago with a heater shield and an (blunt) axe similar to the one Matt shows here (maybe a slightly smaller axe head), versus a sword and heater shield in modern hema gear. (I wanted to experiment with axe-hooking etc).
And in short it just didn't work out, at all! I am a quite competent fighter but I just couldn't use my axe in any competative way. The axe was light enough, but just because I couldn't risk knocking my opponent's mask in I needed to slow down a little bit, yet the axe felt quite flexible at first. But dude! my opponent just effortlessly and casually ran rings around me with his sword. Tapping and attacking me at will. I had absolutely no chance even though he did take it easy as well. It was hilariously onesided.
It did leave me to believe that the axe, when used for war in this match up would needed to be used quite heavy handed and forceful or be at a severe disadvantage. Making it unsuitable for our sport context. It was a big eye opener for us.
I agree with the assesment. We have to give up some mentalities of combat for the sake of saftey. Safety first! We dont want to seriously injure our sparring partners, but then we lose the mentality of combat and warfare where you should be exceedingly agressive and violent. I definitely agree the axe is a more agressive weapon, you should be getting in really close fast and hitting hard, but that is an extreme risk to sparring partners.
@@ArmouredProductions agreed! Safety first! That why we just couldn't 'get it right'. Oh well. 😁
Axes really are tools first and foremost. Some one confident using a broom handle could win against it. If no armor was involved.
@@Armchair.extraordinaire-bo5mv early historical warriors do not agree with you. There are many examples of fighting axes in periods that do lack armour. There is a huge difference between a tool-axe and a fighting axe as well.
@@Armchair.extraordinaire-bo5mv A well made fighting axe will be a far, far nimbler thing than a regular hatchet or felling axe.
When it comes to the tomahawks in the Americas and difficulties in their use (as a native that does reenactment/living history and martial arts here and there) it really depends on the axe, a trade hawk from the French is going to behave differently than a Missouri war axe, which will also be different than an Apache hawk, etc etc. the weights, handle types, blade thickness and all will dictate that. But if I had to say if one was to have the advantage over the dirk or Bowie it would be the Missouri, if fact I think you you have your axe maker friend make you one, you would not be disappointed. It’s jokingly described by one of my HEMA friends as the Dane axe of the Mississippi
Being from SW MO thats good to know
I heard how a Viking armed with an axe held King Harold’s army back while defending a bridge till a soldier speared him from under the bridge
it happened at Stamford Bridge when the two Kings met. What I am interested in is it possible that a Berserker did this. I am not addressing Etain when I ask you sir I have watched plenty of reenactments and find most of your videos interesting. I feel silly asking but have you considered reenacting that part of the Battle. Maybe even experiment with different weapons. But seriously if I was capable of demonstrating that a man really could defend a bridge or not. As all your friends have good knowledge of weapons it would help prove myth or not as well I hope be fun for you guys. I know I wish I could go on reenactments as I love learning about history and what it felt like to walk in their shoes as it were.
Dont believe everything you hear or read...
@@andreascarlberg3998Who rattled your cage lol
@@andreascarlberg3998 If you choose not to believe what experts have said for centuries that’s up to you
To be fair, people haven't really changed. Even if he had a six shooter, no one wants to be one of the first six.
There was a video on Norse axe skills. Especially with a bearded axe is that can hook on a shield and pull it away. This also goes for hooking on to a sword and pulling it away.
Yer, I was kinda an expert in this technique, hooking weapons and shields, while using my shield as a weapon, in western style viking fighting.
There’s always exceptions-I’d recommend looking more into historic spike tomahawks. They averaged around ~8-10 oz (~250 grams), head and handle. A big knife of equivalent length winds up weighing more-requires much more steel for such a long edge. So historic spike tomahawks are faster and more nimble than knives of equivalent size, and they achieve maximum effect at maximum reach. I make tomahawks with chopping edges at just 1-3/8” long, and these easily bury into pig heads with arm motion alone. A big knife at equivalent reach is either raking the tip or inflicting a shallow stab-sure that’s having an effect on target, but not nearly as effective as a chop through the skull. The spike side of a spike tomahawk also opens up options for when targets get inside the arc of the chop-a simple twist and retraction can pull the spike into the opponent-the tomahawk becomes a meathook on a stick. Great videos-I always enjoy your content.
Good discussion Matt, looking forward to that Richard III analyses!
As a person who fight primarily with axes myself, I always find something useful to take with me in every special you do on axes.
Excellent video as always!
speaking from a early medieval reenactment context, i've been fighting with and training people use an axe for just over a decade and the thing that i've learned the most with axe over sword fighting, is that the axe fighter really has to think ahead in the fight, you really have to think two or three steps ahead and you have to work your opponent into the position you want to make the best strike, because as you rightly say, your area of hit potential is way smaller than a sword, so you need to use the axes advantages to move your opponent to where you want them. As i say i'm only speaking from an early medieval context, so axe and shield, i can't speak for later periods but i imagine the principles remain the same.
just my 2 pence
I expected you to say something about options too.
With the axe, or at least most axes, you must swing and hit with the small striking area against your target area, giving relatively limited movement.
With a longer blade you usually have a lot more options: tip cuts, draw cuts, thrusts, swing, chop, and you can also arguably defend easier: there's more to deflect, parry, and block with while also still presenting a danger to the opponent. Feints are also easier, as you can redirect a blade far faster and easier than with the swinging momentum of the axe.
Bruce and de Bohun faced off in what became a celebrated instance of single combat.[14] Bohun charged at Bruce and, when the two passed side by side, Bruce split Bohun's head with his axe.
I follow you for years, and still understanding new stuffs. Thanks.
For context, the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian army in WWI re-introduced the "fokos" as a trench-warfare weapon. Appearantly it enjoyed an advantage over long blades (bayonets, assault knives attached or not) and similar things and after some years of fighting, there wasn't a significant difference between the Italian, Russian and Hungarian conscripts' skills.
Several hundred years ago i held off a whole battalion on a bridge with an axe. It was definitely an upgrade from the jawbone of an ass.
And then some a**hole stabbed you in the nuts with a spear?
Lol nice.
It wasnt about axe, but about tactical position (narrow bridge) and you were high on mushrooms. Btw. that accident on Stamford bridge when you killed 40 english men is probably myth, not historical fact.
@@23Disciple lol. The reports of my demise were greatly exaggerated.
@@Gterr1971 I understood that reference.
No mention of bearded axes?
Having an extended blade helps considerably, especially on onehanded axes and you can pull if you hit with the handle.
That's what I was thinking when Matt brought up push/pull cuts. Sure, a sword could probably handsaw some damage onto someone, but an axe with a decent beard or point (actually, like the one he was demonstrating!) could help you get control of their body.
Ooh! I look forward for the Richard III episode!
Before I say anything I would like to state that I am by no means an authority on axes, melee combat, nor historical combat. It seems to me that axes would serve a totally different purpose in combat than a sword or a dagger would and to some extent would have different goals in terms of combat. From my limited understanding of the armored and shielded eras of combat, swords were primarily a weapon for the elite and occasionally back up weapons for archers, whereas axes would be more common in the melee along with weapons like spears. In a crowded space like a battlefield, it would make sense to me to have a weapon of variable reach like an axe that can be used to grapple shields and limbs as well as making lethal attacks. A sword (once again 0 experience in HEMA or any other relevant experience/knowledge) seems that it would struggle in the chaos of a close quarters brawl that I imagine the front line would be in. On a separate note, a sword's battlefield tactical philosophy seems to be to wound an adversary enough to disable them or prepare them for a lethal blow whereas an axe would be to get the adversary's weapon or shield out of the way or to grapple the opponent in order to prepare for a lethal blow. In short, an axe seems like it is made to be focused on the final strike where a sword would be more balanced towards wounding the enemy throughout combat.
I do viking reenacting and when first starting out we have to use axes. I prefer the short axe because while my range is limited, I can more easily disarm my opponent with an axe, or pull his shield out of the way. Love my axe (her name is Sigrid)
This video is almost ten minutes long to explain that a sword has more cutting edge...
I was gonna say… I enjoy this channel’s content and find them very informative, but he has a tendency to reiterate the same statements over and over just to arrive at a point that was essentially covered 2 minutes in
@@dioclex7308 my exact thought xD
Long time instructor of MA and various weapons here.
I would love to see you do a series of vids on day to day defensive weapons.
Especially my dear Eastern European shepard's ax.
I love them.
For a sword, the center of percussion, or that part of the sword that would contact your opponent when you’re trying to cut them, is as small as the cutting edge on any axe.
On an arm, yes. Across the chest or back, not even close. The sword would produce a shallow slash, the axe would drive deep.
yes, though the point is that even when striking with parts that are not the center of percussion, the sword will still do enough damage to create a wound. Possibly a debilitating one. This is also not figuring in push and draw cuts.
Yeah, I've gotten my first sharp sword a week ago (a Cold Steel Gladius Machete), and the borders are almost useless to cut from outside the target, only the edge is useful for cutting. The thrust is devastating though, and the borders help cut very well from inside once you have penetrated a target. Wasn't sure if it was because my blade isn't sharpened enough or not. Tried on empty bottles. The edge is still the size of my hand, so it's still usable, but I admit I'd like to have it cut with the borders too.
A truly devastating cut requires the blade and target to be at 90 degrees to each other as well. With a rounded axe head, all hits are 90 degrees, which is why shields were also rounded. It makes them terrifying against unskilled and unarmored opponents, though a draw cut from a sword against some poor villager would also have been devastating. 99 ways to die.
Did a bit of HEMA, used both axe and a sword. The Axe was fun, but lacked the versatility of the sword.
The one advantage I was able to find with the axe, it is useful for hooking and pulling. Pulled a few shields down and Dane Axesz which allowed those in my formation to hit the target. Did leave me exposed, however.
I'd guess this is somewhat mitigated against better armour in that swords and knifes really need to hit some kind of opening whereas that poleaxe is going to ruin an opponents day no matter where you hit them. Armour being basically invulnerable to blades but certainly not against a pick or hammer.
even then they aren't the anti-armour weapons that people believe they were.
Like a guy in full plate could take multiple hits with a hammer before surrendering
@@kimashitawa8113 still a lot less hits than it would take with a sword. But yes, they didn't magically nullify armor's protective qualities.
knight fight were like wrestling with stabbing often
When you say “I didn’t mean to be flipping you the bird” I was chuckling pretty good😄👍
yes, but if you use an axe as a tool daily you get very conferrable with the distance and edge alignment.
some free training there you would not get with a sword ;)
A woodcutting axe and a battle axe are different enough that I don't think the cross training is specifically helpful. Using a woodcutting axe will help you with edge alignment and grip strength and some swinging mechanics, but I think those apply equally to combat swords and combat axes.
I don't actually have combat experience with an axe though, only woodcutting and swordfighting experience, so maybe I'm missing something.
@@holyknightthatpwns you are missing a lot
@@holyknightthatpwns I agree - the trees and carving blanks that I chop don't fight back or move about very much 😂
Well a baseball or tennis ball moves pretty fast and most don’t have much difficulty learning how to hit them with the meat of the bat or racket so 🤷🏽♂️
@@dgoodman1484 projectiles move in much more predictable ways than people, and also aren't trying to hit you. I think there's a lot less complexity to be worrying about in those sports.
Thank you for what you do matt.
What are your thoughts on weapons like the Nepalese kora or the Congolese ikakalaka? It seems that they could have the best of both worlds: they hit hard like an axe toward the distal end, but they're bladed all the way down so they can still cut if you hit closer to the hand.
I am curious about his thoughts on blade shapes like the Ikakalaka
Lynn Thompson has done some great videos demonstrating tomahawks/axes. He mentions using the top of a spiked hawk like a T to block and parry as well using the beard to hook and control. This doesn’t fix the blade length issue but does point to some options a long blade may not have. (pun intended)
Quick Question: I would totally agree when we talk about 1 on 1 combat. - But - for my understanding (which actually is limited)- it is a different thing on a battlefield when you have to take amor into account. As far as I understand Swords or Daggers are not very good against armor (not talking about thrusts since the video is only comparing slashes). I always thought swords had not enough mass to have an effect on armor and that the edge would be seriously damaged when repeatedly hitting shields or armorparts....?
Another consideration is the hooking/draw cut aspect of a bearded axe. I’ve heard that they were used to stab/cut should your swing go long and to pull shields off line to set up a second strike.
Everything you said is generally true, but I think you overestimate the "difficulty" in using an ax. I say this because in the past hand tools were used daily by most people. So while the ax certainly has challenges to its use, vast numbers of people would be somewhat to very accustomed to its use. Before the use of gas, oil, and electricity for heating and cooking, nearly every household had a hatchet or machete around the world to make kindling and many had axes for firewood and other tasks. In the "First World" we've forgotten how common their use was just a hundred years ago. While generally not moving targets, the value of muscle memory from thousands of swings a year can not be overstated. Of course, this applies to swords and knives as well as common agricultural tools like flails and scythes. Based on a couple of machete fights and machete vs. hand sickle that I've seen in the past, it seems that attacks come fairly naturally to wielders but counters take at least a moment to begin to figure out. In the few life and death fights I saw, the man with the better defense won or was less injured.
Side note: the percentage of fights that ended with both opponents seriously injured and bleeding is astonishing. In several cases I know of both fighters died within the week from blood loss and infection of injuries readily addressed by timely modern medicine. Others lost considerable use of one or more limbs.
I'm not sure if I dare to ask where you've seen those fights, but i will ask: No shields, right?
Maybe we should differentiate countries by time on purpose ^^ There are surely parts of the world, that still are living like in the olden. I'm kinda happy cause of the reminder that I could experience quite a bit of it, our mountain hut in Eastern Tyrol w/o electricity (but at least reachable by dirt road), rural parts of Thailand were the 60s (except the majority of vehicles) were obvious, the sad greyness of Culloden Muir or the windy emptyness of Land's End.
Thanks for reminding me, that the World is beautiful still 🥲
@@AND-od5jt I was in the rural Philippines and the men involved were farmers, not professional fighters. Because of the usefulness as an all purpose tool and because of the poor law and order situation, men wore their bolos[machetes] every time they went to the fields[mostly paddies] outside the village. Disputes generally involved liquor or jokes poorly taken. In several cases the men were relatives or best friends. Some of the fights lasted less than a minute. The winner was generally full of remorse and turned themselves in. The longer the fight lasted the greater the chance that others could intervene.
I think this is the real reason "Vikings" used axes. No one remembers that there is no "Viking" people but that the Norsemen "went a vikingur" or went raiding, to "become" Vikings, or raiders. They were probably farmers, ship builders, and carpenters rather than professional soldiers. The purpose of the bearded axe was to allow the user's hand to support close to the blade for close-in woodwork like shaving. All the other ideas are romantic notions based in nonsense. So, they HAD the axes and were skilled with them. Similar to getting an arm chopped off by a Nepalese farmer, even today. They have kukris because they are useful tools that they use well.
European battle axes and the men who used them were different entirely - they were designed for war, used with shields, and were used by skilled troops. I think having that skill and training is probably superior to even people who used axes daily and either of these groups of people would probably ruin a modern, flabby Westerner's day.
@@clintonm2357 What about the shroomers -- aka berserkers -- when was the warrior "elite" formed? The problem of re-integrating warriors after long campaigns is as old as war (and imo Romans dealt with it quite well, giving their veterans parcels of land to settle)... *stops the decent into the rabbit hole*
Love the video.
just a thought here... If you're a woodsman or somebody who used to using an ax... Your brain targeting system is going to be way better, right off... So I can completely understand how an axe could be a more difficult weapon for beginners, But for the farmer or the woodsman, it might be the right choice, even for their first battle, because they're used to it. For me, here in texas, of course, we love our guns and blades.Etc... I own rifles and amount them an AR15...But i've probably used my shotgun more than anything, because i've been bird hunting and taken thousands of shots at moving targets... Even though an AR fifteen might be a better choice for some situations like
more than two or three people.... I'm so used to my shotgun. Hitting moving targets, reloading on the move quickly...I might would choose it, And it might be a better choice, as long as I didn't have too many enemies in front of me. The point is the things we think are difficult, like throwing a tomahawk... That might be the simplest and best thing for somebody who's done it from the time they could walk on.... I guess what i'm trying to say is the best choice of weapon depends on who's using it?
I mean it's "just" hand-eye coordination. That's coming with practice, same as in tennis or badminton, you'll relatively quickly adapt to the length and where to strike.
There's weapons more adapted to X ou Y situation, but I do agree, experience can make a huge difference.
Im from the Austrian mountains and used axes to process firewood and bigger ones to split logs from the day I was just physically able to do so - so I do not really see Mats point - you have to aim the ax head to hit where you want- yes, indeed - but that just comes natural after years of wood work
I have a lot of experience using differents weapons in combat. The biggest problem of the axe is if you are fighting longer weapons like swords or spears you get hit 10 times before you are able hit one time. Also they fatigue you more because your arm is forced more mantaining defense stance or launching blows. The edge lenght is the smallest problem in a real combat. Most of times you hit with the tips of the weapons because you instinctly use the maximum range to get more safety. And an axe when hits, hits harder than other weapons. If you are using a poleaxe, halberd or dane axe you are on a big advantage to someone equiped with sword, again just by the length of the weapon. No matters how precise and damaging can be the sword on close combat if I hit you 10 times before you reach me. You can see hundreds of depictions from different periods with swords being a secondary weapon stored in the baldric while they use lances, spears, pikes or poleaxes. Have a short edge may be even the only advantage of the weapon, because the design of short blade and a heavy and concentrated head increase the penetrating damage on impact.
As a layman, I'd like to express my thoughts: 1) Axes were (and are) obiquitous. Easy to produce, and up to the modern age, every farmstead had several in their posession. People were used to using them.. It was an everyday tool. 2) Axes were not used in 1:1 combat in pitched battles. They were a readily available weapon by the rank and file troops, at no extra cost to the bearer. In the medieval times usually non-warrior people were either summoned by a lord or hired for money. They were not used by people trained in combat-at-arms. And if Richard III proves that, then it's just another sign of that he wasn't succumbed by ordinary troops. Which, in itself, would have been a revolutionary discovery. 3) If you're a rank-and-file soldier in the medieval times, you are (hopefully) standing side by side with at least 10-20 people on both your sides, and many behind. And, as you have pointed out before, with a shield. So, the disadvantage of not being able to swing your axe around rapidly dimishes. You have an axe and a shield. You know how to use both. You're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with your regiment. As long as you're not left alone, it's a good deterrent.
Was it inefficient? Yes, compared to what must have been elite weapons at the time.
Was it economical? Yes, as you could get thousands of troops who were already familiar with how to use it, and they had their own.
This is still a period where everyone had to equip themselves. (edit: most troops had to supply their own uniform and gear up until the 20th century. And is some ways, still do, if what they want is not standard issue).
You're saying this like all this isn't stuff he hasn't covered before in some form or another. The man's gotta make content.
I often hear people citing this idea of "It was a widely available tool", but the thing is that an axe intended for war is *not* a tool. A battle axe, or any other axe (terminology being what it is) intended to be actually used in combat has a blade far thinner than an axe intended for chopping wood. If you took a battle axe to a forest to do some chopping, you'd be mangling the blade, and it'd suck for that task anyway, being light and simply not meant for it. And if you took a normal woodcutting axe to the battlefield, you'd be swinging around an unwieldy, overly heavy thing. Which, obviously, did happen (plenty of people have been forced to use tools as weapons), but is by no means what you *want* to be happening.
And before there's ten different people jumping on me shouting about how you could totally kill someone with a chopping axe, then yeah, obviously. You could kill a man with a rock or a pitchfork too. Neither is intended to be a weapon, and both are suboptimal. It's the same for a normal, everyday common use axe. I'm merely pointing out that this conceit that a battleaxe was interchangeable with a common tool (which goes both ways; I often see people claiming that carrying a battleaxe would mean you'd also have a good tool for various tasks you needed to do on the side, which is roughly as smart as saying the same thing about a sword), and that it was widely available as an utility thing, is false.
Axes were ubiquitous. Axes *intended* to be used as weapons were not (no more than any weapon of war was, I mean).
@@goblinrat6119 Even bad pizza is still pizza. What I mean is, whether an axe is made for chopping wood or for warfare, getting hit with either one will accomplish the goal - you'll be maimed or dead either way.
Since we're standing so tightly packed together in rank and file *imagining the nice description* that we can hardly swing... I think I'd prefer a spear (or a very light pitchfork/trident, which I know to use too, since I fish every lent) :D
p.s.: I'd say the Swedish regular (non mercenary) troops of the 30 years war introduced uniforms, but mid 17th century french at latest. (I'm not willing to count "just capes" of some Habsburg regiments in the 16th, although those already had rank insignia)
@@John-ir4id Exactly as I said, yes (and acknowledged this would be brought up, too). Point being, I think there is a misunderstanding of what a dedicated weapon of war like a battle axe is, often. When we're talking about why people wielded axes in war, saying that people had chopping axes available really does not cover it
I do a full contact LARP (Belegarth) and we hit each other with foam weapons. Very often the part of our foam weapons that we have to replace is the tip. I just had to repair a 34" sword and the only part of the foam that was *really* in need of repair was ~6" of the tip. I'd say it's very common that we're able to consistently fight with the tips of our weapons. With that frame of reference I think that someone who trains and fights with an axe would have no problem consistently fighting and striking someone with the pick or blade of an axe.
Curious on how Native American Tomahawks held up against European Sabres?
Great question
Recently one of my HEMA buddies brought one to training and fought against a spadroon user with it while using a dagger in his off-hand. Now, he wasn't trained to use that weapon and lost most rounds because of that, but it became clear that the longer reach and better hand protection of his opponent were crucial advantages. It would be the same for sabers, I imagine. However, if a more capable person was able to consistently pull the opponent's weapon or arm to the side with the axe, things might look differently.
Indians ambush against much smaller forces. Rarely large pitched battles.
The tomahawk would be at some disadvantage if you're talking about unarmored single combat between the two & don't include throwing. With throwing in the mix, the tomahawk possibly has the advantage if the wielder can throw well & they start far enough apart.
that's kind of a tricky question because it really, REALLY depends on who's using what weapon, more so than usual.
Outside of the cavalry, most european officers really didn't bother training to use their swords, they were just something to gestured with in combat for emphasis. The reality of european style warfare at the time was officers are there to give orders, if he has to actually fight sword in hand everything's gone terribly wrong so how well he can use that sword is pretty irrelevant.... Obviously you will find exceptions, but that's the general attitude most armies had
contrast that to the natives who, more often than not, had a fairly strong warrior culture that put emphasis on feats of individual bravery, meaning the average tomahawk user is probably going to be fairly proficient with it. If he's going to war he's expecting to get his tomahawk dirty at some point, so odds are really good he's a better individual fighter than the guy with the saber
If you're asking of a technical level, the saber is hands down a better weapon design for combat. That's kind of just a fact, the saber is one of the best sword designs out there and that's not really up for debate. If you're asking how the two matched up in practical terms you'd probably be hard-pressed to get a clear cut answer from historical sources. despite being technologically inferior, the tomahawk was likely more often in the hands of the more skilled user, leading to a rather murky conclusions.
this is something i noticed in the new Half Sword playtest physics based game. you really had to consider where the “area of concentrated force” is on a weapon, cause too close and something like an axe or a mace becomes much less effective. And conversely you often see draw cuts being really useful when you get really close with swords. A tradeoff being that those concentrated force bits can often hit way harder in terms of pure concussive force.
of course the game isn’t wholly realistic, but it made me apreciate a lot of the basic bio-mechanics in fighting.
you should check it out Matt, its a really interesting experience. it also really made me appreciate how different degrees of armor effect how you engage others. (also don’t confuse the playtest with the demo like I did!)
That's why the bearded axes were used with their longer edges
You forgot to mention the favorite of my ancestors.... the bearded axe. It increases the cutting and striking area and makes deflecting edged weapons more effective. Also allows you to strike in more upward and sideways angles without missing and just hitting someone with a stick as you say. Also the handle would be resin dipped and wrapped with thick hide to weather proof and prevent damage to the handle.
The advantages of an Axe over a Sword must often come down to cost and availability.
Plus, there is evidence that Axes are more intimidating.
Were I in full plate, I'd be far more worried about that big spike on the back of that Axe than I should be by that Sword.
Also their utility and ease of repair. The way I see it, axes tend to be more used by cultures that raided, since they're good against basically all armors that can be put on quickly, any strikes that actually land are more likely to put an opponent down than a sword could since bone doesn't really stop an axe, can be used to cut ropes, branches, etc. and anything else that might need to be cut when approaching or escaping, and their main breaking point is on the shaft, and that can be relatively easily replaced if you've got basically any type of wood.
@@TeronRedoran
Plus, you really only need high-grade steel for the edge, again saving on cost. And you can make hundreds of Axe heads in the time it takes to make a sword.
Also, as you touched upon, an Axe has other uses other than as a weapon.
Famous last words before getting half-sworded for good.
honestly i think most people overlook the fact that most of the people in a given battle aren't, in fact, wearing heavy armor. Most people are relying primarily on a shield for defense and probably some padded armor, or in later periods mail.
Axes are actually very good at dealing with all three.
The extra percussive force and cutting edge of an axe will hack through a shield far, far easier than a sword, it will cut deeper into things like gambesons, and can more easily injury a person if it doesn't break the armor. If you're going into a battle knowing most of the people you'll be fighting against are foot militia..... yeah, an axe is a pretty damn good choice. Especially if you've got a spike on the end for dealing with the more heavily armored opponents you may run into. This is especially true if you happen to be one of the people in the shield line and not a noble in heavy armor.
So yeah, people just kind of assume axe is the cheaper options, but that's not really the case. Axes actually have a lot of inherent advantages in the press of practical combat that swords often don't. If what you're expecting is to have to quickly bash your way through the shield of the dude right in front of you and get that one good shot in to drop him, which is the reality of most medieval combat until right up to the early renaissance period, the axe is a really good option.
this, i think, is the primary reason why axes have been so popular for so long all over the globe
@@petriew2018 Also, if you can afford one, you can wear a sword to use later on if the axe breaks, or gets lost.
I never thought of it like that thank you for your thoughts and insight Mat keep up the videos love them brother
Setting aside the specialized uses of fighting axes where they would perform well, part of the reason that one might tend to think of axes as "simple" or "easy to use" in fighting might actually be because they would have been more common among the general populace. It seems to me that medieval villagers would be quite likely to have axes on hand and practice using them- swords and the like, not so much. I also imagine that, historically, axes would have been comparatively cheap, familiar, and easy to make for an average smith as opposed to other weapons whose production would be more specialized. Ergo, if you're putting together an army, maybe save the swords for more seasoned or elite troops, let the peasants go to it with the axes and other tool-based arms. So axes wouldn't necessarily be "easy" to be effective with in fighting, but "easy" to put in someone's hand (especially if the bosses are not up for investing time and money in the conscripts).
Thanks for the insights!
Very good point here- especially in earlier cultures where warriors were still mostly part-time, your average fighting man likely didn’t get much time to practice with spears or swords, but they used their axes all the time for any number of routine tasks. When you swing your axe a hundred times a week, you know how it behaves, and you know how to make it do what you want it to do. Familiarity with your equipment is a huge advantage, possibly enough to cancel out the benefits of reach or the handicap of slightly trickier considerations of measure.
Nice to see you again, Matt! I thought I'd just mention something you might find interesting: In regions of Europe abutting the Steppe, like Poland, Hungary, Croatia etc., (not forgetting the Byzantine Empire), the cavalry axe was used as a secondary weapon by cavalry, along with the lance, estoc, sabre, bow-or pistol. Its main use was cracking the opposition's helmets.
Just a little FYI.
You can do two melee "tricks" with an axe, that you can't do with a sword.
1. Experienced fighters often step into the swing of an opponent. This make the swing not reach maximum speed and force, and you get hurt less. This is really effective against someone inexperienced with an axe, since you don't get hit with the sharp and heavy part of the weapon. But if you're trained with an axe, and someone step into your reach, you can use the axe as a hooking device, or to gain extra strength and momentum, to make a more effective bodythrow. I never used a sword, only local, traditional, machete like, knifes (bondkniv), so maybe the momentum thing would also work with a heavier sword, but I would guess not as well.
2. I never been in an actual melee using an axe as a weapon myself (only against opponents using axes), so I don't know how well this work in the real world: If you quickly loose the grip on your axe while swinging it, it will still travel forward with enough force to do some damage. So while your opponent is busy parrying, step out of the damage zone, or taking the blow, you get a small amount of time to e.g. increase your distance, rebalance, switch to another weapon, or deal with another enemy. It's something in between swinging an axe, and throwing an axe, at someone.
I've only trained trick n:o 2 as a kid, and you really need to train it to make it work, even against a dummy. I've used trick n:o 1 in real street fights, with improvised melee weapons, not an axe, but it worked really well.
I don't know if this is a more modern combat style. My home town had/has? this ad hoc melee combat "system". Some parts of it goes back to at least the 18th century, but I don't know if some parts goes even further back. I didn't learn to use this "system" systematically. Other kids, and more rarely adults, tought me the general principles, and showed me different tricks to use, or combination tricks that they knew worked well with some other trick they had seen me using.
The longer I live here, the more I'm realising that this region of the world is deeply, deeply weird and I've just been sheltered from it because I've only lived in a couple of large cities.
The reality is that a fighter that has trained to fight with an axe for many years know all the strengths and weaknesses of his weapon and he will make sure to fight in ways that will take advantage of the strengths and cover up/avoid the weaknesses.
And when someone that has almost only have trained with all kinds of swords and only for sport tries to comment on axes, he tens to show his lack of knowledge on how to fight with axes and what the real strengths and weaknesses are.
Like overestimating how hard it is to learn exactly where you have the edge of your axe and how to use it in different situations to hit exactly where and how you want to hit
When fighting against someone that is well trained with his axe is it very far from easy to time it correctly if you try to step into an axe swing that might be a real swing or it might be a faint.
And even if you time it correctly, you might find yourself in new trouble because your axe wielding opponent has already expected you to step into it when doing the swing and in reality made a trap for you.
To step into an axe swing is asking for getting grappled and thrown onto the ground and it doesn't help you much if you have control on the axe when a dagger/knife is on the way to end your life.
And as you say, can he very well half throw the axe as you try to step in before he grabs you and push/throw you on the ground.
Stepping into an axe swing is extremely more dangerous against a skilled axe fighter than Matt seems to think it is.
Most likely because Matt in general focuses on swords and training with swords.
Also because it is close to impossible to train in a realistic way in HEMA with an axe.
As a rule, throwing a weapon is never a good idea, mostly because the flight path is obvious and sidestepping it is pretty easy. There are cases where that makes sense, of course, and the tomahawk is known for being thrown as much as it's used as a melee weapon. It is true that throwing your weapon is good if you want to buy yourself a few seconds or disrupt a charge, and if you're going to throw a weapon, I'd prefer to throw an axe rather than a sword. There's only one way (point-first) to throw a sword with any effectiveness, but I can think of three different good ways to throw an axe (head-first, vertical spin, horizontal spin).
I would like to hear more about your local system.
@@Duiker36 I think the term he was looking for was 'casting' not throwing the axe. If you start your swing with a loose grip on the axe and your grip at the base of the blade of the axe, the head with travel forward and you can tighten your grip when the head of the axe hit's the desired 'range'/when your hand gets to the end of the axe haft. This is not an easy thing to do but it is something to practice and is attainable. The complexity is compounded by the edge alignment being able to turn in swing...again not a simple thing to do, it's something to train.
Imagine a two handed axe, you start by holding the axe in front of you with the left hand on the base and the right just below the axe head. As you swing, you loose your grip with the right hand and let it slide down close to your left hand so as the axe impacts the wood you are chopping, your hands end up together. While much easier with two hands, it's 'attainable' with one hand.
That said, it is far easier to judge distance with your feet and eyes and have a solid grip on the axe in the first place.
I used a axe quite a bit in my early SCA days. Because opponents are used to blocking a sword not something with an overbite, I would often be able to strike them with a telling blow that wouldn't have hit with a sword. As shield blocking became more dynamic, the advantage went away and I switched to a sword.
Sticks don't hurt as much as sharpened metal - got it. The educational value of this channel is nearly endless! 😉
He said that Filipino martial arts uses sticks to simulate bladed weapons. No, they will take the 2 sticks and use them as a primary weapon and beat the crap out of their enemy with them.
Gosh, 13 minutes talking about "Swords can cut with most of the blade, axe has small blade, so axe hit needs to be precisely with that small blade to deal real damage, yes it's more damage, but if you miss, it is almost no damage at all" thank you. 6 minute video would be more than enough to explain that...
@@cchavezjr7 We have many different weapons in our martial arts. Twin sticks is just one. Edged weapons are pretty common, but since we're poor, we typically use the same bamboo/rattan sticks for training for long knife/machete as we do for stick fighting. To an outsider looking in, it might look like we only train in stick fighting.
@@temperededge I'm well aware of what it all entails. I'm making a joke how he said that sticks are stand ins for bladed weapons when they are very much a weapon that's trained in and used.
I have seen so much videos about ancient and medieval weapons that I learned nothing new in this video...
But I still enjoyed watching it :)
Hand-clasping meme between glaives and axes, over "effective despite the limited strike zone." Honestly, I love axes, and this information just makes me want either
A) a one-handed axe with a Guan Yu style beard, or
B) KUKRAXE.
Isn't that just a machete at that point?
@@kimashitawa8113 Either that, or a hafted bat'leth.
@@NeutralDrow There was that one garden which was a normal machete on one end, and the other was an axe. Two handles. Reviews said it wasn't very good at either job.
Thank you for another interesting discussion. Cheers!
Saying that being hit by the axe shaft is same as being hit by a stick is still a bit of exaggeration - balance of the axe will make it much more injurious.
Yes, & for two--handed axes, getting hit by a heavy stick wielded in both hands is plenty of stopping power for unarmored single combat.
@b.h.abbott-motley2427
Well, no. Medieval clothing is thick. Especially when people know they are going to be fighting - that’s why daggers people carried for fighting out of armour had long narrow blades. Generally you’re going to leave a bruise which someone hyped up on adrenaline won’t even notice.
@@TheGreatAmphibian Thick clothing doesn't protect against a blow from sturdy stick used in both hands. The staff was one of the most common homicide weapons in late-medieval England. Some of the weapons classified as staves had sharp points, but some were simple staves. In any case, records show that many folks died from blunt trauma from staves. & the simple staff, without any sharp point, was a military weapon in Ming (& earlier) China.
It’s all a matter of contrasts. The shaft of an axe is much less effective than the head, or of the length of a sword blade. I’d rather not be hit by any of them but if I had my choice of those options (and “none” is not available) the shaft of the axe wins every single time. When you are trying to disable or kill and the person you are fighting has a similarly deadly weapon hitting with the shaft and then getting HIT with the head of an axe is a really bad day. All relative.
Im a hema practitioner, and one of the best illustrations of this point broadly is the video game Exanima. The game takes into account what part of the weapon hits the opponent, and the momentum of the strike. While I love axes and maces, they take a lot more precision impart much effect.
Excellent analysis. Thank you. Both my weapons are for different scenarios. The short Kopis for defending and jabbing at close quarters.I think with my Kopis short sword in my right hand and my Council Tool Wood Craft hand axe in my left hand I could do some serious damage against a person with a Viking sword. My Kopis is for defending against weapons strikes and close-in thrusting as well as hacking and the hand axe for close in hooking of others' weapons and hard striking at limbs (any), neck and head. Torsos are fair game if hitting the rib cage and/or spine. As a former. EMT I know where to aim. This would have been common knowledge of hand-to-hand combatants using iron weapons. Farmers would not have this knowledge drilled into the. and not have long hours of weapons practice. Best for them to flee.
SPEED is the advantage of shorter weapons and must be used for success. A small shield on my left forearm would still work with that 19" hand axe.
As someone who chops a lot of wood to heat his home in the winter, this is so spot on. Especially once you start getting tired, it can be hard to make sure you hit the log with the metal part of the axe and not the wooden stick.
I made a billhook out of a beet hook (which is a short handled hooked knife), since I was a kid I had my dad weld the blade (which is fairly heavy, about 1/4 inch) to a shovel socket from a worn out shovel, and put that on a regular shovel handle, that proved sturdy enough to chop down trees, so if you use a heavy duty handle a poleax can be quite durable, but then it becomes heavy!
Even now I sometimes miss with a sledge hammer (and hit with the handle), very annoying but more common the more tired you get! It's very easy to see why people didn't fight with big honking weapons, and for obvious reasons.
Can you talk about how much and what type of training soldiers received throughout history?
I think in close in fighting that you didn't touch on is you can shift your grip up and down on the shaft of the axe which is what makes it terrifying in a close quarter range where you'd be using knives. It was known that it was extremely hard to predict where the axe blows would actually be coming from. Watch tomahawk technique videos and stories of why frontiersmen were terrified of fighting guys who were skilled with the axe.
nice vid and interesting take, ive only very recently started the sport Buhurt and its interesting that at least in my club that axes are more common and preferred over an arming sword or falchon because of the fact that you can grab the shaft, again i understand that one is a sport and therefore has rules that must abide by, in the case of buhurt its that no stabbing or piercing strikes , but the axe allows for a swing to the head and then into a grapple and takedown.
Of all the peasant weapons, the one I personally find most dangerous is the two-handed sickle. There are sickles with blades so large that they look like a cross between a sword and a spear. One that I remember is the falx. There is a more modern variant called the billhook, which is essentially a sickle with a bit of a spear. I once used a sickle to defend myself from a dog, and even though I didn't have to hurt the animal, I felt that I might have the upper hand, so much so that the dog decided to run away.
I do a lot of Reenactment, and we use swords, and axes and spears other pole arms. We don't count hits in our system which hit with the haft of a pole weapon. This is almost never an issue with a one handed axe or mace, it occasionally happens with larger axes such as Dane axes but is only really frequent at all in trying to cut with glaives or halberds, long pole arms. The bigger deal with hand axes is catching the handle when it is swung at you.
Well that and head weighted weapons are almost always shorter than swords and slower to change direction so feints are harder riposting is harder combinations are harder.
Thanks for this video. I also wonder if it is easier or at least more likely to be able to parry an attack with a sword or large knife/dagger. The longer metal edge would be part of that, but also the weight balance might make it easier to redirect a sword to parry an attack.
mel gibson in patriot showed us the whirlwind style of using a combo of a hatchet/tomahawk and a big knife/short sword in a close combat situation....also in east europe in the olden days long knifes were considered swords and even butchers have had to have licence and pay fee for such devices, /mostly sheep/ shepards used for selfprotection against wolves, wild dogs and even bears "shephards axe" oftens a longer walkingstick /about from ground to users navel/ with a quick takedown axe head, it is also a symbol of defiance by famous slovakian highwayman juraj janosik
Great video, thanks Matt!
@4:40 Matt Easton speaks of those that practice forms of martial arts, specifically close quarters combat. I my self am a re-enactor (AMTGARD) and we use a multitude of lengths for our weapons or boffers and primarily these are “short” swords. What he is saying about range is entirely accurate. Just because we aren’t killing anyone doesn’t mean our game of tag has no relationship to really striking someone. 24-36 inches of stick, or sword, is still 24-36 inches. Now, in AMTGARD (google this for curiosity) we use various types of foam for our padding but mostly these are cylinders, so we generally strike at angles that a sword cannot and will not work (the edge does the damage) but we do have innovative weapon makers and many have created very effective axes. These tools hook shields, swords, pole arms, and legs. AXES are effective. And yes we have large battles with shield walls and sieges against fortifications (sometimes with trebuchets or catapults).
When I was younger and hitchhiking back and forth between Connecticut and Arizona every year from 1984 to 2001 I would make a fighting"tool" of some sort, the last one I made was from 2 of those hay cutter blades and a piece of bed frame each triangular blade had 2 serrated edges and the flat part that was riveted to the cutter frame so I took a couple of bolts washers and nylon threaded lock nuts cut the bed frame at about a foot cut the corner in half because I wanted flat not angle drilled my 2 holes and made a tomahawk
A longer axe or hammer has the advantage of having a lot of blocking and pushing power, can create range, and will have some concussive force even if you miss with the head - which is probably why it was a primary weapon. But a sword will almost always wound an unarmoured person. However, if you're facing armoured opponents, swords also have a disadvantage (that's of course why they developed thin thrusting blades to get into weak points) but there, the long poleaxe or even the single handed axe might have an advantage if you hit. But as you say, as a weapon on it's own, axes do come with a lot of difficulties and require training. Now, if you're a farmer accustomed to chopping wood or something like it, you may have an advantage because you're used to wielding the axe and estimating range. Anyway, great video, I enjoy your stuff!
The answer is at around 4:30.
Excellent video! Anyone can use an axe- axes are used in everyday life- swords require training by the user
Getting struck by any heavey arm will hurt, and disorient.Fully armed up ,No sword has the power of any type of pole-arm.Power to thrust Ratio. Happy New Year,Walker
I think some of the reason they're popular is that they're probably easier to make than a sword. The other reason is that the can be used for chopping wood when it is NOT time to kill people.
Is there a weapon that puts a penetrating spike (90 degrees from the blade) on the end of a sword? It would seem that eliminates the biggest negative of an ax, while retaining the anti-armor benefit.
Most the argument towards sword over axe seems to be biased largely in favor of slashing the way you've set it out. An instinctive predilection towards slashing to my mind seems to indicate most often a lack of control and inadequate training.
So would an offhand axe with something like a spear or an estoc be a viable setup?
I ask because it happens to be a pretty meta setup in pvp for elden ring, and I always thought it looked kinda silly 😅
But hey, maybe it could work? Dominant hand for more dexterous purposes, and then the off-hand axe to throw haymakers with, or if someone has a shield, a clean strike gives you a handle attached to their shield.
And I could see an axe being good to help catch a sword alongside your other weapon, so the right axe could help you grab/disarm a blade.
This doesn't seem like much, but to my limited knowledge, most ways to disarm, grab, or parry a blade are usually pretty risky already, so a way to do that at length from your body sounds kind of practical, versus something like a hilt that's fashioned to catch a blade.
Axe vs Sword is hard to gauge, because real fights would be a lot more dynamic and blundery than re-enactment, because any armour that can be use to block a sword, would be used to close a gap by a stronger and or better armoured opponent. An axe swung hard enough can break a sword block a lot easier, an axe can be thrown, followed up with a dagger. If you are bigger, you may choose to shoulder someone and enter a brawl, hoping to knock em over and, axe, axe, axe, rather than elegant taps while standing. Formation fighting, a smallish axe could be good as any short weapon in confined space, but in combination with spears etc from your m8's behind. They where pretty popular for a reason :)
Great video....this reminded me of the Prince Oberyn vs Mountain fight on the GoT show....for most of it oberyn was making sweeping and swinging motions with his spear and the mountain was keeping his distance from them...but he didn't need to as he would just be hit with a long stick while wearing a full plate armor.
I have an axe to grind with this topic… 😑
I do wonder how the calculation of one good killing blow and then moving on to your next opponent factors in while using an axe.
Certainly you can wind at a higher frequency using a knife or sword (using Matt’s argument), but in a pitched battle, might a blow that severely wounds when landed be better at times?
I’m not looking to test it any time soon, but it Vikings and The Pirate Show could make the argument.
With axe+shield vs swird+shield wouldnt you want to get real up close, shield bash agressively, negate the swirds reach and flexibility advantage, and swing the ace around the shiels for one big disabling hit?
About the 'hitting at one point'...point. In sparring most of the more 'seasoned' fighters hit each other with the same point on the blade when we are in the 'fight'. When we do our best to hit our opponent with the center of percussion or the last few inches of the blade, it becomes 'normal' that you will only really connect within a two inch portion of the blade. This is an aspect of proper distance management and proper striking 'ability'. I will acknowledge the new students are all over the place in 'where' on the blade they make contact, but the advanced fighters are not really hitting with the meza when they intended to use the last few inches.
Have there been recorded duels between axe and sword wielders? If so which won more duels?
There’s a secondary reason why axes are hard to use: edge alignment. It needs to be closer to perfect than it does with a sword. If your edge alignment is slightly off with a sword, you’ll still cut, just not as well. However, the same degree of rotational error holding a axe haft can result in no cut at all. The reason is that the blade’s edge on an axe is further from the centre of rotation than on a sword. So some edge alignment errors are still effective with a sword that are not with an axe.
I'm a bit unconvinced about this, and I'll admit I have no experience with battle axes, but I did my share of cutting firewood with a wood axe, and missing edge alignment never seemed that much of an issue. If you get the aim right, it'll somewhat self correct. The weight of the head also helps push the head forward, even if it's a little sideways. It's got that momentum that's hard to stop.
Maybe that's a bit different with a battleaxe that's lighter and thinner? I don't know I haven't tried that.
Did try some cutting with a katana tho; there edge allignment feels really easy to mess up. I'm guessing because you have less of that weight and consequent momentum, so even a little bit of force to the side of the blade's enough to stop it.
Also with a lot, or even with most swords you need to do more of a cutting motion rather than just a chop, which is more difficult.
@@SirConto oddly, the curved edge of the axe results in all hits being at 90 degrees, which transmit full power into the strike. Like you said, self-corrects. The long, flat blade of the poleaxe he brought out would take us back to the edge alignment issue.
One thing to remember with axes is that historically most people had experience wielding axes as tools and so had a lot of muscle memory for swinging them, so were better at hitting things with them!
Hitting a static object has absolutely nothing to do with trying to hit a person that's trying to avoid getting hit while also trying to kill you at the same time.
The stress and adrenaline of a real fight to the death for someone who only ever used a non battle axe for chopping wood would have far more significant of an effect than the ability to hit a static object, which you can do with literally anything in any way you want, no problem.
@@kevinlobos5519 So boxers don't hit heavy bags and they never used pells for sword training historically to build muscle memory . . .
@@bubbagump2341 I never said that, those are your words, not mine.
I'm just saying what I stated in my comment. Which is that swinging a somewhat similar object to a weapon with the intent of chopping down other inanimate objects translate poorly to fighting. Might make you fitter and used to swing forcefully but that's about it, and can be achieved by numerous other jobs and tasks.
Tool axes are only similar to battle axes in looks. They are handled and used in very different ways. Same could be said of someone who has trained to fight with a nimble battle axe but never in his life chopped down a tree or handled a tool axe, he would perform poorly at that task in particular and would only be familiar with a tool that looks similar but functions very differently.
Fought with axe and center grip shield quite a bit in the SCA although my primary fighting style was sword and board. It is, indeed, a pretty difficult weapon. There were few people using them and very few using them well. Based on my experience with the weapon, I don't agree that controlling the point of impact is really that big of a deal; it just isn't that much harder than trying to strike with the percussive portion of a sword. To that point, I can not recall it ever being a problem for me to put the head on target. In my opinion, this is somewhat of a red herring as an argument to the point that I was surprised that it was your central thesis.
In my experience, the problem with axes is that it is difficult to get the hang of managing the momentum and power of the weapon efficiently. Range control is somewhat of an issue (they are generally shorter than swords), but not as much as many may think. That said, once you get control of the weapon down, there is a lot of stuff you can do with an axe that can not be done with a sword. Of the two, the axe is more difficult and intricate to use, while the sword is much more efficient and agile.
Доброго времени суток, уважаемый Мэт Истон. Спасибо за ваши видео! Смотрю вас из России и занимаюсь HEMA. Спасибо что не забываете о зрителях, что смотрят вас не из праздного любопытства как развлекательный контент.
Желаю вам всего самого наилучшего в жизни и фехтовании, а каналу -- процветания!
I watched a video where you showed a sword that was not sharpened for a significant part of the base of the blade. Although I hear what you are saying, not all swords or knives are sharpened the whole length of the blade. Then there are thrust only swords that do not have an edge at all.
Your videos are really eye opening. I was wondering if you would do a video on the weapons of the Crusaders? I would like to see how weapons and armor changed from the 1st to the 3rd Crusade. What kind of Weapons were carried by Bohemond and Richard The Lionheart?
From what I remember from my fights with axes, it was mostly with a shield. If I am moving out of the shields safety to strike, it will be very intentional. Hitting the body, shoulders, even legs up close didn't seem very difficult. Now moving arms, the primary target when using a sword, those I would try to avoid with an axe if possible, unless the person was standing still for a second.
This was with fairly long axes, something like 75cm.
People used axes as daily tools. Sword like tools were a thing. But less common. And one of the best advantages of a hafted weapon, used in on hand or two, is that if you miss with the ideal striking surface you can use the head to hook the enemy. Where as with a sword you just get a shallow ineffective cut, which might not even pass though structured clothing commonly worn by swordsmen.