"blitzkrieg"... Not really the same thing, given than the "blitzykrieg" was not so blitzy. I think "blitzkrieg" is propaganda from the allies as an explanation for their loss.
Another question: what about the throwability of the axe? The frank axe is meant to be thrown, right? So maybe the viking axe was a throwable axe that also served as a normal battle axe, and eventually as a tool to cut wood, since you need to repair boats to go home. Axes are versatile, but definitely they can cut some wood in case a Drakkar needs repair.
So I guess actual war axes are slimmer ant thinner than more comventionnal axes, but one more question would be, if you don't hit too hard, can a battlle axe be slowly used as an axe to repair a woode drakkar? May that explain the excess of axes? You know, one stone two birds?
That's how I still today debate:"No, I don't need a new vacuum cleaner, no I don't need a new telephone provider...and I definitely don't need a new religion. "
Known as skilled woodworkers and boat builders, axes may simply have been comfortable to use as muscle memory would likely make them confident to wield. If I worked with a tool on a daily basis, that happened to be deadly, it would likely be my weapon of choice.
This line of reasoning, which seems sound, also inherently implies that one HAS an axe to begin with... and that of course is a key factor in what weapon one chooses to use. You have to figure that the average Norse farmer or fisherman probably owned a number of axes of different styles and types.
Good theory. The vikings came from a land where an axe was probably used by everyone once a day at least. Their life and technology was all about wood, for building, shipbuilding, tools, furniture, heating etc. So they were all used to work an axe, irrespective of age or gender, they had the strenght to use it and they simply had the "feel" for it. So little Svein probably had his first spontaneou weapons-training when his mom sent him out in the mornings to chop some kindle-wood for her, so she could heat up their breakfast of porridge, herring and warm mead.
When you go to the Viking museum in Rosskilde in Denmark, they all use axes for most of the rough wood work, so yes highly skilled in using it and forearms of high tensile steel... One blow from a skilled axe man would easier disable a combatant than a sword that doesn't have concentrated weight.... So one blow one enemy out of the fight?
Exactly. They fought with axes because they carried them anyways to do repairs and build new ships. I've heard stories of the Norse/Vikings not only moving some of their smaller ships over land from waterway to waterway but also building entirely new ships on the spot. if the next waterway they wanted to get to was too far away ours much easier to just build a new boat than try and drag your old one 20 miles to the next nearest river. I'm sure that at least one of the crew would have been a shipwright since even in the later eras of the great English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch sailing ships they always had a shipwright onboard abs an axe would have been one of his tools. It would suck going on a major raid hundreds miles a way from home, having your ship get damaged, and getting stranded because you left the guy who was good at ship building at home.
My opinion is pretty simple, I blacksmith; I can repair a wooden haft a lot quicker and dirtier then I can repair a cracked, chipped, bent, or blunted blade. As they where always on the move and trying to do hit and run scenarios as much as they could, simply stopping to repair a broke or damaged sword was not an option I bet, a slightly chipped or dull axe could be ground and a new haft could be mounted, but axes are by and large more durable and easy to repair then swords.
@asdrubale bisanzio : I am german ( of swabian tribe). As descendant of typical wurttembergian ,part time farmers' , so from 1965 to 2001 ( end of farming by my father) i saw the very end of old country life, and heared a lot of old village life. The blacksmiths in former times had often to work with woodworking craftsmen : The waggonmakers, in german Wagner, made the wooden parts of wheels, but the iron wheel ring , had been made and fitted by blacksmiths, according to my father, a difficult work. Also those Wagner/ wagonmakers made not only wagons, coaches, Schubkarren ( don' t know english word), but also ladders and shafts for all kind of tools necessary in villages. ( On the other side of the street of my fathers house lives an over 80years old ,and long retired man who was the last man, learning Wagner in my Landkreis ( Arrondissement? County district? Prefecture?). Also a blacksmiths work was horseshoeing and before Veternarians existed, to some degree still now, they looked for hooves of horses and cattle. Also ploughs/ Pflüge had been made once from wood, but the ,Schar' , don' t know english word, was made of iron, same with mill maschinry. Also i habe forgotten the barrel and bucket makers, in german Küfer , Büttner, Böttcher, Böttger, Schäffler.... needed iron rings for their produccts. So in old days , blacksmiths had some knowledge of simple woodwork, but with exeption of cases, a quick repair was necessary, they have not eine this for the very rigid (?) guilds/ Zunft system of former times.
Probably the same reasons everyone else used them. Axes are relatively cheap, relatively easy to maintain, are quite effective weapons, double as a really useful tool, and are fairly useful against armour.
Axes also make a much better "persuader" than a sword does. Flip it around and you have a nice beatin' stick for those unruly slaves you're trying to corral.
yeah, but you would probablz use different axe for chopping wood and chopping poeple - woodcutting axes would be heavier, shorter and more wedge shaped so bcs of that it would be terrible battle axe. Battle axes were nothing like axes you typically see, they were longer and lighter.
RE the armor issue: also remember the Vikings traveled by boat on the ocean. Unless you keep it practically coated with lard, mail will rust, and those thin links will rust through VERY quickly on a long campaign. I remember seeing a video of one island off the coast of New England and in 20 years every bit of iron in the abandoned village was rusted away. So, I suspect being in an open boat on a salt sea had a lot to do with the lack of armor.
@@mortenjacobsen5673 Well, its not going to help with the amount of salt in the water vapor in the air. And in an open boat in a rough sea NOTHING will stay dry. The sheep skin may help slow the rust, but, in an open boat nothing will protect mail except being rubbed down with heave fat.
I think that this point is also related to axe use--on top of being generally easier to maintain and repair, an axe has a lot less metal than a sword, which means that dealing with inevitable rust is less of an issue. While I'm sure it is possible to pack things away in trunks so that they are somewhat protected, this isn't very practical for raiding, where the object is to take stuff home. The more space you take up with weapons and armor, the less space you have for bringing things home. If you fill your boat with chests for storing mail and swords (which you also want to take home) you won't be able to fit as many slaves and chattel for the return voyage. Besides, if you're going on a raid and have to fight people who are actually real threats, you're doing it wrong.
The Scandanavian penchant for axes seems to go a long way beyond the viking age. The 1274-1276 laws of Magnus Lagobote of Norway specified that a spear, shield and either a "half-thinned axe" or a sword were the basic weapons, with pieces of armour to be added based on income. Men who had received their first wages and couldn't get a full set of weapons in one go were to get an axe first, then a shield, then a spear. Christian IV's 1604 militia law requires various income levels to equip themselves with different combinations of muskets, halberds, spears, tessacks or axes. 17th and 18th century Norwegian boarding axes tended to have much longer hafts than their southern counterparts, sometimes to the point that they were two-handed, could be fitted with a top spike, and the Swedish axes sometimes had their blade curve up into a thrusting point. That suggests to me that they were much further on the weapon side of things compared to continental and British boarding axes.
Long axes seem to have been a common nordic peasant side arm / dress accesory at the very least untill around 1600. In the scarce depiction of the peasantry from the period, the appear quite reguarily from Ditmarsken and upwards.
In the age of Danish privateering, durring the napoleonic wars. Boarding axes of the swedish design, where apparantly popular amongst privateers from Bornholm combined with shortened muzzle loaded shotguns and blunderbusses ofted loaded with glass or stone shards.
@@EmilReiko Der er lavet en bog om kaperfarten på Bornholm med alle de registrede Kaper breve samt en oversigt over de tagne priser, jeg skal høre med min far, desuden er der en del familie anekdoter i det, de to traditionelle gårde i familien blev åbenbart købt kontant med prise penge
“This isn’t going to be an exhaustive video just about [video’s topic], it’s about the *context* of [video’s topic].” - every Matt Easton content since 2007
That's the difference between a five paragraph magazine article, and a scolarly, in-depth discussion. If you're looking for magazine articles, why not just go elsewhere, instead of complaining that the discussion isn't shallow enough?
I've gone on weird tangents about the Europa Universalis and Victoria games several times. Actually works pretty well, since most kids find any video game more interesting than school stuff.
The Danes were primarily interested in raiding, so they fought more like pirates, they were more interested in taking slaves and property. If a fight was more costly than it was worth, they would retreat. If you're not interested in losing your life or taking land, it makes sense to retreat. They were also essentially Marines
Matt I don't want to be a pain in your butt, but the video would be even more awesome if you would pop the pictures on screen of the helmets, swords and equipment you are mentioning.
Agreed! With your encyclopedic knowledge you could share a huge amount of visual information by showing illustrations of the things you mention. When I lecture I stand in dim light and let my PowerPoint show what I am talking about.
Im a fan of the, because its offensive, argument. That they fought in a rush style. Damage on shields and shield fragments also suggest their fighthingstyle was far from the passive shieldwall that has been popuralized by hollywood. I in all seriousness think people should look at the zulus for an idea on how a viking age scandinavian warhost would engage its enemy.
I dont give much for the, because they are used to use them as tools… doing woodwork with an axe and fighting with it is two completely different realmes.. the one dosent translate into the other.
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles the Viking incursions come across as mafia-like extortion schemes made mobile, and able to threaten anywhere with easy access to a watercourse. They were paid huge sums by various kings in exchange for them leaving that king's lands alone. I'm particularly thinking of when the sons of Ragnar Lothbrook were wreaking their revenge on King Ælla.
"Taxes in axe blades" was very possibly a kenning for using their axe to pay, I.e working or fighting for the chief/jarl/king. In translation you have to think around corners sometimes.
@@jencrowson From the context it's not men. Cnut the Great asked his lendman, Kalv Arnesson, for 3 dozen axe heads of the best sort. Kalv Arnesson refused to pay, but would gladly pay his son, Svein, the king in Norway at the time. Cnute had promised Kalv the Lade Jarl seat if he fought against King Olav. He didn't keep his promise.
All good points but remember many going Viking were also younger, poor men lacking land or younger sons away to make their fortune and starting out having limited resources - not having inherited Dad or Granddads sword. Similar to the weapons used by the Fyrd in Britain at the time - A good Axe was probably the best choice to go with a sharp knife and once you have experience you can acquire more Armour or weapons if successful. But remember if you started out and became good with an axe changing to using a sword also needs training in fighting with a sword you might not live long enough
According to the Norwegian book "Vikings at war" by Hjardar and Vike the typical "shopping list" when going viking should be, in order of priority (until you run out of money): 1. Spear (cheap) 2. Shields (cheap, and you need several as they're used up in battle) 3. Helmet 4. Axe (significantly cheaper than a sword) 5. Body armour (chain mail) 6. Sword
I would say it's also a tool that is intimately familiar to a shipbuilding culture. They probably got so much "mileage" with an axe outside of any battle, what with building, and camping, logging, etc. that it felt near and dear. An all-purpose tool par-excellence, so it felt comfortable and secure to use it for battle.
Why axes? Do you have any idea how hard it is to break down a door with sword? You ruin a perfectly good Ullfbert, and everybody at the weekend pillaging just looks at you like an idiot. There's not one shieldmaiden in the next ten longboats who will drink mead with you after that fiasco...
Actually I read, if memory serves me, an article that the number of weapon-axes increase in Scandinavia during the Migration Age. The author suggested breaking down doors during raids, might be a reason for this.
@@martinkafka9510 do you really believe anyone would try to cut wood with spear? Do you think humans other then you are idiots? You have an illusioned picture of people around you.
As an added benefit for raiders the axe is relatively low maintenance. Considering the vikings were operating in salt water a lot in a ship with no deck and a lot of ship related maintenance to carry out. It is a weapon, a tool, and easily replaceable.
Good point, if you ask me. A sword is usually in a scabbard, where moisture (and salt) can hang around and speed oxidation. This is a problem even today, and you need to regularly maintain your swords and check scabbards for moisture retention. An axe is not usually sheathed, thus nothing around the metal to hold moisture. Sure, the wood could retain water to some degree.
@@longpinkytoes While this is more my fault than anything else, to me the Filipino are not famous for any weapons. However, a quick google later, the Filipino seem to favour blade heavy weapons, some of which show a strong resemblance to a machete. As I said I am unfamiliar with Filipino history, so to me to context of these weapons are missing. Which weapons were used, in the wars of the Filipinos, prior to contact with Europeans, which arose as a result of the colonial wars and which were tools is all information that would be relevant to this answer. Finally the Philippines is on some good trade routes to access Indian crucible steel which would also influence their weapons development. it could be simply that the people in the Philippines had access to better steel and more of it than the Norse peoples.
Dwarves are described thoroughly in period Norse Mythology Svartalfheim is depicted as a vast underground world of caves, lit only by the mighty forges that the dwarves use as renowned blacksmiths in the Norse world.
The great myth about the Vikings is that they were "all" dedicated warriors and as well trained and equipped as a modern professional soldier. Some of the Housecarl bodyguards of the lords leading the raids would match that description and would have dedicated war axes but the majority of the Vikings on the raids were younger sons of peasant farmers who weren't going to inherit their family's land. Think of them as being "sharecroppers" who were pulling an oar and carrying a shield for the promise of a share of the loot or a farmstead if the raid they were with decided to settle down. They were a prime example of the adage "quantity has a quality all of it's own". They'd have minimal weapon training beyond throwing spears while hunting or scuffling with other boys in their local community. As you mentioned their primary weapon set would be a spear and shield and if they had to carry another weapon it would be a seax style long knife or a hatchet that was as much for chopping wood for firewood and building shelters as it was a weapon. For untrained and inexperienced troops, having a weapon that has limited options works to their advantage as they're less likely to freeze up in a stressful situation as they try and figure out which of the dozen or so options to use that a more advanced weapon like a sword would offer. "Get in close. Body slam them with the shield. Then hit the Saxon pig like you're chopping kindling for you Gran'. " is advice that will keep a novice alive a lot more often than showing them all of the different guards and parries that a sword would offer.
Thank you for making this point so that I didn't have to!😁 Not that Matt's theory isn't feasible, but this is just what came to my mind as a reason for the disproportionate use of axes by the Norse raiders.
Presumably the ship owner would try to get some known fighters on board, if necessary by promising them a higher share or a flat payment - maybe you don't want to go out with Rolf and his ship, but if you hear that Ragnar and Leif have both signed up then wow, he MUST have a good plan. You get enough skilled men to take care of whatever local defenses you might encounter, but fill up the boats with young men because they are much cheaper, so more is left for you. After all, you have to pay for the ship's upkeep and a few months of supplies. When the raids aren't just owners of ships going for a smash-and-grab looting but actual nobility or would-be nobility trying to take land, they ought to take far more known men with good weapons - not only will they have to stand and fight if they are attacked, but the leader setting themselves up needs to assert authority over the settlement, and the combination of prestige from hiring well-known fighters and the ability of those men to enforce your rule by violence would be vital top that.
I think it is important to remember that the people hardest hit by raids, for the longest period of time were the Scandinavians themselves, ship based raiding was probably endemic in Scandinavia long before the Viking age - and its really the adoption of sails, that gives old boys transitioning into adulthood the ability to also strike beyond Scandinavia and its immediate areas.
Silver John: I am german, of swabian tribe. In those days, when levies (?)/ Aufgebote of tribes, clans or regions had been largest parts of armies, the leviemen had often only their own weapons, depending on their wealth, so the poorer men often had only a knife as sidearm and a tool or sometimes only a Baseball bat like club as polearm. ( See the armament of Highland clans at Culloden 1746) . Military training? Perhaps with spears or bows in medieval time, when allowed to them. Wrestling, street- , stick- and knifefights also, so the leviemen had not been totally inexperiemced. Really trained had been nobles and knights ( and their nordic counterparts in medieval/ viking age) and the men of their retinue(?)/ Gefolge. This retinue men and perhaps some mercenaries had been the only professional soldiers really trained in military weaponry.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Id think similarly to the way a bounty was shared between crew on a 18th century naval ship in that rank would decide the percentage of the cut. They would also accumulate better arms the more raids they went on.
I just spent eight months living in a tent, I made a lightweight hatchet, similar dimensions to the smaller axe he has here. It got me through the winter in Cornwall (not too harsh but cold enough). ...While there, this question popped into my head (as my beard grew) and it just seemed obvious that, if you want a lightweight kit, for trekking, surviving in the wild and raiding, an axe is by far the most practical weapon/tool to carry. ...If you carry a sword, you're likely to need an axe too, but if you fight with an axe, that's literally all you need to carry. ...And that means more loot too - rather than going into a raid already carrying a full load. An axe could also be potentially be useful for running repairs to a boat (well, perhaps, more useful than a sword anyway - could carve an oar for example with an axe) and, obviously, building a shelter.
I partially disagree with the idea it has little to do with resources, I think it has a lot to do with resources (but of course not only). It is true that Norse people as a whole did have access to things if they wanted. But I argue that, other than more official military campaigns that were their own thing, the raiding vikings (i.e. norse pirate raiders), weren't exactly the "we doing great here" people. People always talk about the named ones, kings and lords and what nots, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the raiders were overall not the "we could easily buy better if we wanted to" types. Another indirect way I think it is related to resources is, axes are far more expendable than a sword. You're going on a raid, it is a dirty and quick job, 50-50 change of you taking some good loot or running for your life in retreat cause it just isn't worth it. Sounds to me like the kind of context you might want to take whatever you can afford to lose, maybe even literally throw away at the enemy to slow them down as you retreat as light and fast as you can. Also, being maritime for days or weeks at a time, and frequently so. Their low, open boats boats, so close to humidity, sounds like the kind of environment that just wants to ruin your pricier sword before you even get to use it, while your axe would be much easier to maintain, and worse case it is a mace now, and if it really gets ruined, big deal, cheap stuff.
It's mainly that everyone had one because you needed it just to build and maintain a hovel much less a boat. They were also much simpler as a tool than say a saw it a file. And much more practical than say a spear.
@@horseblinderson4747 I am sorry, but that doesn't work. They didn't live in hovels, and didn't live in wooden houses more than the rest of Europe either. The usefulness of an axe as a tool was exactly the same for pretty much all of Europe, at the very least, at the time. And the idea an axe is more practical than a spear is absolute, honestly, it is pure gibberish. Be it from the pov of anyone who practices those weapons, be it from the known fact spears were norse and vikings most common primary weapon, they only favored the axe as a sidearm.
I suspect that part of the problem is that everyone is thinking it is an either or proposition, and not a both proposition. What we know is that more axes are found than normal, but swords were also found, and we do not know how many men dropped how many weapons. I can see how as a raider i might want both, and i certainly wouldn't leave a perfectly serviceable axe on the boat when i do not know who or what i might encounter.
The Great Axe has another advantage you don't mention. With a Great Axe I can hook and manipulate the opposing side's shields to create an opening for the spears on my side. It can also reach past my first rank if I am in the second rank as a response to my spears getting rushed. See this often in larger battles in the SCA and Jomsviking type styles.
To me the distinction should be made more often between peasants raids and soldiers raids. Private raids led by a boat owner were the first and most frequent, employing common men who used what they had : their one handed tool axe as their main sidearm. Then later came the professional raids led by Chieftains, Jarls or even Kings, who launched raids with well equipped troops. They had professionnal gear : swords as their main sidearm. In the Heimskringla (Saga of the kings of Norway) swords are extremely prominent compared to axes. Surprise surprise the Saga talkes about professionnal norse soldiers.
I feel there is another case to be made, Norse warriors used axes a lot because the axe was an important tool to the typical Norseman. Carpentry, fire wood, boat building, the axe would be a tool that a lot of norsemen would be used to and that could be converted into a useable weapon with very little modification. An excellent example of the actually comes from England. In the later medieval period the most common polearm was perhaps the billhook. A weapon created from a common agricultural tool that most of the English peasant class had access to and knew how to use. Or the Hussite flail and/or Okinawan martial arts.
It's fair to say as well, that we militarize the tools we have available. If everyone knows how to use an axe, it's not a giant leap to using them for fighting, especially when the axe gets a redesign. Spears aren't that different to farming tools, but swords are quite different from knives. A war axe is not so different from an axe you might otherwise use. But a sword is. Not a huge logical leap.
I thought the same. Last week came from camping trip in forest and used axe a lot and was thinking that axe is versital tool and important in context of constant travel. And for carpentry work thin blade axe is better. Wide chopping axe is good only for chopping. In trip I used axe to make a simple bow for kids.
@@andrisberzins9053 True however at the time a single axe would need to be capable of a variety of jobs, in this case I believe that the workhorse of axes was the Norse's signature bearded axe.
@@ScottKenny1978 That's partly my point... The bill was an agricultural tool but the English modified it for use in warfare. The Hussite's likewise did the same with the flail. Even the seax knife that was commonly used by the Norse was also a weapon of war as well as a tool.
20:00 A lot of viking raids "happened" around the Baltic coast though. Knowing this I would hesitate in saying that the Norse used axes more often than their enemies seeing how axes were also very popular among Slavs and Balts. I mean, there is a literal crap-ton of axes of many different sizes from that region too while any findings of swords are a rarity in comparison to the rest of Europe.
There's also a religious aspect to it, the "axe god" which later evolved into modern day Thor/Donar. Ancient axes used to have an axe head on one side and a hammer head on the other, thus leading to the axe/hammer god dichotomy. The sharpened axe half was used for everything from combat to cutting leather and meat, with the hammer half being used for building. Thus the axe/hammer became sort of *the* tool for the working man at the time. Thor/Donar was seen as the god for the common working man at the time and it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to imagine people using his axe/hammer in an attempt to better emulate their diety. I would reccomend checking out the video "Thor's Hammer or Axe Historical?" video by ThegnThrand for more information.
There is also the possibility of rust being a factor, which is going to blunt and destroy a sword much faster especially if you are raiding and sailing over the sea in an open ship. Also the temperatures in winter around the arctic might have made swords become more brittle and easier to snap or break against hard stuff.
You could also just bring a bunch of Axe heads in your ship and quickly manufacture the Axe handles once you land. This would save both weight and space on the ship for more important things to help survive the trip.
Good point overall, but keep in mind Vikings stayed home in the winter. You probably don't want to be in a longboat when temperatures are freezing or near freezing.
@@chengkuoklee5734 That is a large oversimplification. Other than the words rust and maintaining and higher abstraction concepts, the two actual processes have little in common. There are different levels and kinds of effort involved, different damages to the objects involved, different ways performance is impacted, different costs in resources and time, different times for rust to penetrate, different whole bunch of things that makes both things not very alike except in a talk about it kinda way.
Think of these two headlines: “Man cut by sword - nasty wound” “Man hacked to pieces by a battle axe - blood and body parts everywhere, the most horrible thing I ever seen”.
I’m no historian, but it seems to me that an axe is a far better weapon to have aboard ship than a sword. And as Matt said, if a weapon is pulling double duty as a siege tool to chop through doors and other fortifications, then the appeal of the axe seems obvious.
Jason, I hope to add a full reply in the general comments, but it would be a total pain in the arse to maintain a sword (of that era) in a maritime environment unless you coated it in grease and never used it or even removed it from the scabbard. The question then, could you even draw it quickly? I totally agree, the axe was much more practical. Pax dude. (a general comment to follow)
@@roderickclerk5904 I have to concede your point and for sure, if your life literally depends on it, arms and armour will definitely get a lot of attention and maintenance. It seems to me, that an axe is just simpler 'all round' and there's no worry it will break at a crucial moment? I appreciate that a well made sword is in some sense, the ultimate killing tool whereas an axe is a tool that can also function as a dangerous weapon? Forgive me if I repeat a comment from elsewhere, but how many years does it take to become proficient with a sword? By comparison, swinging an axe doesn't exactly require a manual. If you consider the 'shield wall' as the preferred fighting style, then up close and personal (in a crush) a sword is more a liability, it's just a big awkward knife in such a scenario, whereas an axe, even without a swing, has weight, impetus and can stun or pull shields aside. Ok, in personal one on one combat, I would prefer a sword, it's got range, speed balance and lethality where-as an axe just has mass. Put 200 sweaty men together and start raining blows with axes (even half held) upon the foe, the swords (please excuse the pun) just won't cut it, those guys will get trampled down and finished off with spears/seax's as the fight moves on. Something nobody has referred to (I think) is the actual size of those men, they were giants by comparison to some races. i'm not small, 5ft 11 and a half inch to be exact, I'm not fat and it would be honest to describe myself as a middle-weight in terms of body-build, not muscle-bound but not weak either? My point is this, I had cause to work in Scandinavia, even the urinals were almost too high, every man I spoke to, I had to look up; they are big, imposing men, so give them a large heavy weapon and they will 'twat' you aside to get to the real fight! Was that an answer or a diatribe? 'effed if I know, but respect to you sirrah, my hat is doffed in your general direction, pax vobis.
i think you also need to think that every piece of equipment you take on your " Raid ( or a Viking ) " would have to be carried back which mean less you can steal ( take ) from your target. I feel the Axe is just more useful than a sword in this case
Matt: You might consider locking down your ISO at the acceptable level because, in your current set-up, as you move in and out from the camera and, in particular, tilt the shield, the light levels rise and fall due to the the auto ISO feature you're employing. Just a suggestion.
To be fair a lot of us never even look at the video and just listen to it like a blog. The only time I even look at the video is to skip the advertisement for "Raid Shadow Legends!"
The median person who went 'viking' - i.e. raiding - were poor (financially disadvantaged) young men. My (limited) understanding is that wealthy ship owners would organise the raids, but a lot of young men with few resources would be attracted/recruited as the fighters. The lure of raiding for these younger men was to become wealthy fast... even if the the ship owner got the lion's share of the profits. In the context of an over populated Scandinavia, where wealthy (older) men could have multiple wives, younger men trying to 'make it big' through raiding makes a lot of sense. How else to make enough to buy land and settle down? If so, the same relative poverty that attracted these men to raiding would rule out buying (or inheriting) a sword. They would have make do with axes. A fair proportion of these young men would die before they could afford better kit, so more poor young men would have to take their place. Again, they would be forced to use axes. So that could be a good social/economic argument for a culture of axe-wielding. This hypothesis also would account for prestige existing around sword ownership.
I would have to disagree. You could make a lot of money raiding, and depending on the individuals culture it might be preferred to live a life of warfare for the sake of wealth, honor or religion.
Presumably the ship owner would try to get some known fighters on board, if necessary by promising them a higher share or a flat payment - maybe you don't want to go out with Rolf and his ship, but if you hear that Ragnar and Leif have both signed up then wow, he MUST have a good plan. You get enough skilled men to take care of whatever local defenses you might encounter, but fill up the boats with young men because they are much cheaper, so more is left for you. After all, you have to pay for the ship's upkeep and a few months of supplies.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Sounds pretty plausible. The experienced ones would be your leadership cohort too; telling the younger ones what to expect, and what not to do. They'd be less shaken by brutality and be able to act as internal enforcers if necessary. And, like you said, they could bring martial credibility. Still, I suspect Ragnar and Leif would demand credibility too - they'd have a better idea of what costly incompetence looks like. Since they might not credit promises from someone too clueless to keep them alive, that ship owner might need some positive personal qualities to impress them with (apart from his ship). This conversation is starting to sound like the beginning of a guide: 'Norse Raiding for Dummies'.
Pish posh, raiding was a family Ventura or holliday or intermarried families form a clan, you did not go down to the local ship Wright and just buy a boat you had to commision it, devote resourses and Manpower, and the farms and industries where run year round, and dont forget that in Norway we have this thing called "dugnad" so the entire town might have pitched in. Children where sendt of as servants to learn trade and skilles so education and skilles where more worth than money
Axes probably made for very decent sidearms in that period because unlike swords, you can carry them with your shield hand and still use a round shield pretty much just as effectively as without. Switching to your sidearm is much faster that way and can be done during an exchange of blows. So when you're wielding a spear, your opponent just knowing that you might carry an axe in your shield could keep them from rushing you down. Also a little fun fact: The German saying for "to be up to no good" is still "to carry something in your shield"
The trick of keeping a sidearm in your shield hand might be easier with a strap-gripped shield, rather than a boss-gripped shield. But I'm not a arguing very hard either way, as anything one carried (even small) would still be mischievous. Thanks for the German adage; it's a bit of living history.
Hey we have the same saying in Dutch... "Iets in je schild voeren." Literally translating to "Something in your shield carrying". Meaning to have a secret plan, or something along that line.
@@righteousindecision2778 Not at all. You would lie it along the grip and wrap your fingers around it. It would basically lie flat along the back of the shield and rest seamlessly in the fingers. It would feel like a fatter grip is all, but shouldn't cause problems.
The D&D dwarf king Bruenor Battlehammer has a magical round shield, and when he reaches behind the back of that shield, it produces a neverending supply of invigorating flagons of ale. So he's up to all kinds of good!
Sounds like a well thought out argument to me :) I do wonder whether swords are harder to maintain when you are spending a lot of time near salt water. Not a crucial factor, I sure those who took swords with them coped. But would it have been awkward enough to be a contributing factor?
It's interesting that you mentioned the highland clans because I was thinking that that use of the axe (sparth axe, etc) among the Gallowglass fits this understanding of the axe as an offensive weapon. Additionally, many of the Gallowglass were of norse decent and may have inhereted much of their martial tradition. The Gallowglass had to be effective in the raid intensive style of Irish warfare of the middle ages and renaissance. Also, if I recall in many of their encounters with the Elizabethan era English they seemed to very quickly either win the field, or be slain. Even though they were heavier infantry than other Irish units, they still preferred ambush tactics. In other words, their military strategy was not centered around battlefield endurance, but rather an aggressive attack meant to break the enemy.
This would also be supported by the use of javelins which are useful in breaking enemy defenses by lodging themselves in shields and eventual adoption of the large two-handed swords that became synonymous with Gaelic warfare.
The Norse have a culture of axes going back to the Neolithic times. They weren't just making them for weapons, they were part of daily life as a tool in various forms. Even today the best axes are made in Sweden (Gransfors Bruks).
Note that varied axes were made for different purpose. Battle axes needed length and shape to cut armor points to poke cut and hook opponents and not be too heavy. Not good for cutting trees or building boats or cabins.
@@amcamc4423 Yup, just go look at the line of axes offered by Gransfors Bruks. They vary in design even when just a tool depending on their specific use.
Sometimes I think we over analyze things. My father, who’s ancestors were Scandinavian, said his relatives were always very practical and frugal people. At the time of the Northmen, in a land of limited resources, I think they would have acted the same way. Axes were readily available, easy to make, repair, use, buy, and trade without too much expense, rather than a really good sword.
He is talking about Norse raiding, looting, plundering and raping their way through the isles and being offensive. That's why it's a fun word play joke.
So, as someone who is active with Norse living history, I think it's a combination of the points that you made, points others have made (namely ease of repair), and the simple fact that not every Viking was a raider. An axe is indeed as much a tool as a weapon, far more so than a sword.
Every viking is a raider. Viking is a profession, someone who goes on vikangr, a raid. What you meant was "not every norseman/scandinavian was a raider"
In general, I suspect your assertion that it stems from the raid being the most common sort of combat carries good weight. There's something else implied by the nature of seaborne raiding, though. Speculation alert: might some of the axes' prevalence relate to how reliant they were (as a collection of peoples) on the sea? Sure, swords have scabbards, but given the likelihood of prolonged exposure to moisture and the general increase in size of swords over the period meaning significantly increased surface area, I wonder if there were concerns about the amount of time and effort required to keep them in good condition which were somewhat greater than for many other nations who spent (comparatively) less time on the sea. Moreover, while rust is not a good thing for any weapon, if such were a consideration, a bit of rust on an axe head would be far less likely (in the extreme cases) to compromise it's structure and function. Again, this is little more than speculation on my part.
I agree with the speculation. Their long boats had little protection from the elements, were very close to the water, your steel is not protected at all from the salty humidity of the sea, or even salty water. Axe head, gets a bit of rust, easy to clean up the edge, worse case you still have a weird mace. Even if one could afford a sword at home, it would be wasteful imo to take it in a simpler raid (and even in more organized campaigns, you would get at least some people who would prefer the guarantee of a working sideweapon and easy of required maintenance).
I also imagine with more chaotic hit and run attacks losing your weapon could be a greater risk, and while a lost axe can be easily replaced, replacing a sword is damn expensive.
Carrying an axe as a sidearm, is just as easy, if not easier, as carrying a sword. To me, an axe is more useful on board ship than a sword would be, and more useful against armored opponents (swords really are rubbish weapons against armor). Even against individuals not in armor but in layers of clothes, an axe will be more effective. If you're wanting to take an individual down quickly, an axe is the weapon for the job.
@@sawyere2496 true. From what I can gather, a number of the Norsemen that went in viking were younger sons who wouldn't inherit anything, and they would need to buy their own land unless they wanted to work as a farmhand for their older brother. The first weapon (other than a spear) they would be able to afford would be an axe.
Kinetic energy in delivered foot pounds per square inch x 200% Berserker Rage damage increase, +20 XP for each Critical Hit... Yup, the math checks out.
They even named their axes, Here are some of the names from the sagas. Rimmumgýgr = Ambushing troll-hag Skogsgýgr = Outlaw troll-hag/forest troll-hag Galdrsgýgr = Moon-howling troll-hag Genja = Scream/Startle Skráma = Startle Skaði = Hurt/Injure Saxa = Chop off Snaga = Gnaw/Stump Randgríðor = Shield-coveter Svartleggja = Blacken Himintelgja = Sky-high chopping Stjarna = Star Skeggja = Bearded Barða = Beard Hell = St. Olav's Two handed axe. They are also described poetically as: Hamartröll = Mountain crest/peak/hill troll Grand hjalms = Damager of helmets Bryðja randa = Eater/breaker of shields Randgalkn = Shield beast (as in beast of shields) Galli meginhurðar Gauts = Damager of the mighty door of Odin (a synonym for shield)
I think the "lack of resources" argument could potentially hold some merit. Sure, Vikings might have had a lot of resources and access to captured weapons on account of all their raiding, but they did not _start_ off that way. When Vikings first started raiding, they would have been relatively poor and insular. It would have been easier to make an axe than a sword, leading them to initially adopt axes more frequently than swords. And by the time they accrued the resources and access to have a choice in the matter, the Vikings might have at that point developed a cultural heritage leaning in favour of the axe, as well as developed tactics and strategy more suited to the axe than sword. After all, if Matt is saying that the tactics Vikings used made using axes more suitable than swords, the question that raises is why the Vikings developed and/or opted for such tactics in the first place. Ultimately, it's about their circumstances; i.e. due to limitations in their resources initially, Vikings adopted the axe more frequently than the sword; leading them to develop tactics and strategies that worked best with axes. And by the time they had the luxury of choice, they had ample evidence that they were on a winning combination with axes.
I think there is a lot to this. We know that the Norse raids were to a large extent driven by a lack of land in Scandinavia. It would therefore make sense that certainly the early raiders were basically farmers (maybe led by warrior elites) bringing with them their normal cutting tools, e.g. an axe. The video says that some of the axes used (e.g. Danish great axe) were not great for say wood cutting, but those were later specialised axes. I have an axe in my house designed for wood carving. However, if the local chief came around and said 'let's go across the sea and make some money, because this place sucks' I would probably grab that. Later on, more specialised weapons were developed based on early successes.
The Norse exported iron since several hundred years before the vikings. The Norse had several specialized axes for all sorts of jobs. A boatbuilder would have at least 3, probably 7 different axes for different aspects of making logs into a boat or ship. To think they used those very specialized tools in battle, and not just make another specialized tool for battle is an utterly ridiculous notion. While going viking was often motivated by a lack of land, it was not motivated by poverty. Poor people can't afford to outfit a ship like that, not to mention the men to crew it. "A lack of land" in this case means "a lack of land that doesn't have a king stronger than me". Going viking is the pursuit of ambitious young men with nice families to turn their privileged youth into riches and fame. Perhaps enough to launch your own bid at a petty kingdom back home. Popular culture has absolutely poisoned your minds about who or what a raider, or viking is. It is not a poor, ragged, fool that grab a pitchfork to go steal some pigs. They were posh, douchebags, that hit fast and professionally, took your shit, and to add insult to injury, they looked better than everyone else (at least according to English priests). And clauseIV, you shouldn't take your carving axe to fight. Use that axe to make a spear shaft, and that alone (wihout tip) is a far better weapon. Your axe is perhaps twice the weight and half the length of a fighting axe. To fight with it is pure fantasy.
@@Taeerom As with any army, of course the leaders are going to be wealthy and they would be the ones who owned and built the ships. However, I would contend that the vast majority of vikings who weren't the leaders are going to be the average peasant of the time - namely farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, etc. - who aren't going to be brimming with expendable income. There wouldn't be nearly enough rich people at the time for vikings to be comprised entirely of the rich. As for motivations, I don't think it has ever been firmly established why the Norse went raiding. The ones you cite are theories that have been put forth, but are one of many others that have been put forth. And in relation to your earlier comment that Norse workmen would have several different specialised axes for different jobs, this would further explain why they would opt for axes - familiarity with how it handles in the hand compared to a sword, as well as a cultural affinity towards them.
It seems to me that axes will have been extremely effective against mail armor. In fact, I'm surprised the axe wasn't more popular. With a sword, to be sure of doing serious damage to an enemy in mail armor, you have to aim for gaps or unprotected parts. You could get lucky, and break a bone with blunt force, even with a sword, but swords aren't made for impact force, and depending on luck is foolish. With an axe, no luck is needed. If there's a bone where you strike, it'll break. Because the edge was shorter, focusing the force, a sufficiently hard blow would probably even punch the mail through skin and flesh. Mail really sucks at stopping blunt force and hard impact, and is most useful against cuts. Perhaps the real question is "why didn't everyone else use axes more"?
Reach. That's why main arms were spears. And side arms were mostly for defense and survival. When you swing your sidearm in a "don't come near me" effort, the extra length of a sword matters more.
In an honor guard the greataxes would have an additional benefit, they look imposing. If they additionally are able to control a decent amount of space, they would be exelent for bodyguard duty. If I remember corectly, the varangian guard also made use of big axes when protecting the emperors
Here are some constructive criticisms. I could just write a short comment saying that you're saying a lot of misinformation, but instead I have taken the time to do this so that you can take something away and improve your knowledge of the period which clearly needs work as there are some massive "re-enactorisms" and pieces of "inherited wisdom" in here. I have noticed in the past that your period knowledge needs more work the further you get from military sabre and this is no exception. I have had to be blunt because there is a lot of information to impart so please take these comments in the constructive spirit they are intended. This is all riding on a big assumption that they did use axes more than other early medieval warriors, which in itself is very flawed. We have very few sources describing such things and none that I'm aware of actually pointing towards this specific quandary. I understand that you have to make clickbaity videos but going off modern assumptions doesn't help. As for referring to them as "Norse" rather than "vikings", I respect your choice not to call them "vikings". It's heavily dependent on the action of raiding and by the end of the "viking" age they hadn't really done that for 50 or so years. Plus it ignores Scandinavians in the contexts where they are not raiding but form standing armies. are inside Scandinavia, etc. However, calling them "Norse" is equally as problematic. The Norse and Danish cultures differed, and referring to all Scandinavians in the early medieval period who also raided as "Norse" ignores the other cultures there. You are better off just using the term "Scandinavian" for this. When you talk about the sword, you say that spathae are cavalry swords. I think the Roman army from the 3rd century onwards would disagree with you there ;) The spatha was adopted by infantry and cavalry alike. You also said "if you were super lucky you could get your hands on a crucible steel sword like an ulfberht sword". The study of metallurgy in swords, and particularly on ulfberht swords is extensive, but does not show any kind of crucible steel. The studies that have been done (all based upon the foundational work by Alan Williams) show that the only thing we can tell with regards to the steel used is that it is hypereutectoid. Whilst crucible steel is hypereutectoid, so is bloomery steel. Alan Williams himself purported the idea that it could be crucible steel based on this, and it has absolutely zero basis and is purely fantasising. Unfortunately this has led to a common misconception and myth. ulfberhts are just made of good quality bloomery steel, as was produced in the Rhine region where nigh on all the blades for these swords were made. If you want to read more on this I recommend Alan's original work, or this page which goes into significant detail: www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/backbone/rb_4_3.html On your comment on Anglo-Saxon shields being smaller. You are getting confused. The small shields from Anglo- Saxon burials are from early Anglo-Saxon burials in the migration era. We don't have later grave goods after Christianisation because grave goods and burying people with things was a pagan custom. All the Anglo-Saxon burials you are describing are well before the viking age. Anglo-Saxon shields in the viking age are the same size as the paradigm of other shields of the time, and we see this from numerous manuscripts. They don't just keep using smaller shields. The trend for these smaller shields is a general migration period thing, not just from Anglo-Saxon burials. The claim that Anglo-Saxon shields are smaller is just wrong I'm afraid. Your comment about how helmets sit on the head is also wrong. There is no evidence for suspension in the viking age, and the evidence we have all points towards padded liners rather than later suspension style liners or spiders. As for helmets with cheek pieces, the Anglo-Saxon ones with those are 7th-8th century (pre viking age) with a potential stretch to mid 9th at the latest due to the Aberlemno stone. But that would be at the absolute latest and they would not have been common. So making any kind of statement about the commonality of helmets with cheek pieces like you did is unfortunately unfounded. As for "a few" having aventails, only the coppergate helmet does. I'd be very interested to see any kind of source you have on another surviving viking age Anglo-Saxon helmet doing that. You said some don't have nasals - again, not something we can evidence to the viking age in NW Europe at this time. We see that lots in the migration era in the form of Germanic bandhelms but there are basically zero finds that are appropriate to the viking age so again, that claim is unfounded. Your next claim that the items you described are the standard equipment then is also flawed for the reasons I mentioned. A big one being that the shields of that style were a thing in the migration era but not by this point. Saying that the typical sidearm was a sword requires a large caveatting to being within the status of people who could afford them. But you said "for most people" - that just isn't true. Your discussion about the prevalence of Frankish swords being found in Scandinavian hands being evidence of them being stolen through conquest is also entirely hearsay. We have far more evidence that they were traded there than evidence of them being looted so you're very much overamplifying the argument that they were won in conquest. I appreciate that you acknowledged the trade but the simple fact is that trade dwarfs looting to the point where it is inconsequential. Over 90% of sword blades from all of this part of Europe in the period were made in the Frankish empire then exported and fitted up locally. It was trade, and having an expensive foreign sword showed wealth and buying power. The English swords found in Norwegian contexts were often also traded. Next you say (and I am paraphrasing here) that "we have sources from text, archaeology, and art supporting the use of axes more than others". You do not then go on to name a single source that supports this argument. You just say "oh yeah the sources support it trust me bro". You then go on to talk about franciscas - an item that died out well before the viking age. You then basically talk about how 11th century England was a mix of Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon culture due to the invasion by Cnut. Whilst this is true, assuming the axes shown in the BT to be a hangover is problematic at best. Then you mentioned the MoL dane axes and purported that they are from a specific historical battle. This is again, unsupported. Then you start talking about other sources showing they used lots of axes. This does nothing to prove that they used them more than other people. Saying it doesn't really make it true. You ignore survival bias, the size of Scandinavia and the larger sample size, and a number of other factors. You also call Scandinavians isolationist after this. Again this isn't true. As if to disprove that point, you then talk about Scandinavian burials and say that we have "confirmed viking burials" from there. No we don't. During the whole of the viking age, wars played out across Scandinavia with people that never left. Assuming the graves to be viking is simply something we can't do. So you are simply saying something there that isn't true. "some of the evidence suggests the Scandinavians were less armoured than their opponents" what evidence? As for Hardrada and his army, they were caught short, and they were a standing army, not a raiding force. At this point raids had not been conducted on Britain for 50 or so years. Then you talk about "specialisation of axes" "axes for throwing" - no evidence for the viking age "axes for smashing in armour" - no evidence for the viking age The dane axe was a paradigm of all nations of this "Late viking" period, so talking about it being a Danish/Norse idea is just... flawed.
This is a very good comment. There seems to be a lot of supposition, regurgitation of outdated arguments, and inappropriate source work and source citation here, unfortunately.
Not to be a dick about it, but for a comment starting out by mentioning the lack of sources; there sure ain't a lot of sources in your following arguments. That being despite the written format better supporting linking than the visual format. Please notice that I am not arguing against your arguments, I'm just pointing out that from a layman's perspective, you're both basically saying "trust me, bro".
@@macnof at the end of the day dude, I have a life. This comment took a lot of time to write as it waa. If Matt wants to ask me for sources on the topic then I will provide them - but I'm not going to waste my time.
I believe you are correct on your main points, the axe is an agressive weapon well suited for.raids, as well as having utility as a tool. One other factor, however, could be tradition. In the early viking age, resources were limited (that's why they went raiding, after all) and most men would have axes, swords being reserved for chiefs. Even after swords became more available, many might have preferred axes simply because that was their traditional weapon.
Im no historian or anything, so i not sure if im 100% correct here. There is the cultural aspect aswell, i think scandinavians in the neolythic period was part of something call the boat axe culture, and its because they made axes in southern part of sweden looking alot like canoes or "boats", dubble headed axes for the win. and that has carried on since that. I wondered why they wouldent use warhammers as its what the most common diety used, thor, then I came across that mjölnir the hammer might actually have been seen asan axe or half hammer half axe at the viking times. Ofcourse most of it probably came out of practicality, a axe might not cut down an oak, but cuting a rope, using as a hook, cutting some branshes for a fire, using it as a hammer, means its more versatile on a boat or setting up a camp then any other weapon or tool. There also the thing with durability and size, sure a sword can be carried on the side of a scabbard, though it is alot of blade to take care of, aspecially at sea, also when you are on the boat you are mostly sitting down, and you need to be able to row having a scabbard probably works but its probably in the way a whole lot. where with an axe you can take of the head, put it in your personal chest that you are sitting on while rowing, toss the handle on the floor and if there isent room on the floor toss it in to the sea and get good branch or stick when you get to land again, if one of the axe heads corrodes so badly its unusable you could probably have 3 or 4 other axeheads taking less room then a sword. Also through times havent axes been a common tool and weapon for the common soldiers on boats and ships up untill we starting getting metal ships?
Also, they're just far more dependable. When you go raiding for months on end, perhaps in multiple battles a sword is a lot of work to take care of. Axes are durable and have a much lower failure rate. Not to mention, as Matt said when you do have to fight they're always effective against everyone you may encounter. They just pack enough impact, even on a helmet or mail to drop people. Swords not so much. They can hook shields, they can be used for chores. Space on ships is limited, you carry the most all around useful things you can. That is the axe. The primary weapon, which is the spear already takes up enough space. No use adding to that problem.
Whatever was used in the boat axe culture can hardly be used as a pointer to culture three thousand years later. And indeed, no bronze, iron or steel axe looked anything like the stone axes from the boat axe culture.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Only the Ulfberht, Ingelrii swords were extremely hard to break. Most swords were not of very fine quality, and could certainly be broken. Axes, on the other hand, are only really vulnerable along the wooden shafts - the heads being quite solid.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Swords of that era were more brittle than later swords, not less. There's a reason why they had to pattern weld their blades, and it is extremely rare that this was for purely decorative purposes. _Today_ it is chiefly for decorative purposes, because modern smiths have access to excellent steel, and there simply is no need for pattern welding. So _of course_ modern replicas are going to be excellent. But we know from surviving examples that most were of mediocre quality at best. It's not just the process that makes the blade, but the quality of the ore as well. And there were far more inclusions in ore of that time than the ore you have today. You cannot get ore of Viking age quality today, unless you start out from scratch and use their methods. And so far, we haven't been able to make steel with Viking age methods which has been of the same quality (the Norse had the benefit of lifetimes of experience - experimental archaeology not so much). The best swords, the Ulfberhts and Ingelriis, weren't exactly rare - but none of them were made in Scandinavia, and their providence is actually a mystery - because these were head and shoulders above all other swords at the time. And also because most Ulfberhts have been found in Norway, where we know they were not made. The steel was very pure in these blades - unlike the vast majority of other swords found, which ranged from garbage to ok.
MMA "ground and pound". Slide your hand up and you have a slashing smashing terminating weapon. Yell SCREAM charge & block their 1st blow. Strike & slam into them. Kill them. If someone else wounds you, kill them. Then kill 2 more. Vikings prefer axes.
I have a feeling, just a guess really, that if one needs to cut a large rigging rope you might just use an axe or a large knife..... maybe like a Seax. (Edit) I have to also wonder if we have any differences in the axes used from the earlier to later periods during the Viking eras. The Great Axe reminds me alot of Fireman's axes used to break down doors and such that could easily evolve into a battlefield weapon by slimming down once they transition from smaller bands into greater ones and finally into armies. If you're no longer going after monasteries but kingdoms tactics and equipment probably needs to evolve somewhat.
Sea-faring is the distinguishing characteristic of vikings. The axe being more useful aboard a ship is an excellent point. I once had a workman take out a front door lock, enlarge the cavity and put in a new lock, all with the deft use of a small axe. The Norse may have been shipwrecked fairly frequently. The axes would enable them to do repairs and cut new timber wherever they found themselves. They would also be useful in setting up the temporary camps they would need when invading somewhere for more than a few days. The OED suggests that the word viking came from Old English _wíc_ - meaning a temporary encampment. I believe they went a-viking in winter when they were not farming. Perhaps they also had to remove ice from the rigging sometimes.
Skallagrim as entire videos on Vikings. And a seax is not a particularly large knife unless we look at its bigger version, the langseax. And an ax is good at cutting rope, but this is freehanging rope, so a sword would be better (and these swords can be BIG, 35 inches in blade length and up to 4 pounds)
@@pattheplanter Well said. Agreed. I have bunches of weapons in my kit ranging from micro knives through every category of blades and firearms all the way up to 1000yd. heavy hitters. But because I love the options versatility brings, and because I am a lifelong tradesman, I also incorporated certain construction tools into my gear. And one of my favorite tools in inventory are my twin set of (because why not carry two?) Estwing hammer hatchets. Got them at Home Depot for about $40 each. They are the old school camping axe style with the compressed leather washer handle on a stainless integrated spine and head. You can beat the living tar out of them with zero concern. The real beauty is in the form, fit, and finish though. They have amazing balance, can easily be wielded two handed, in reverse or hammer grip. But the subtle chamfering or beveling on all the edges means your hand never feels hot spots no matter how much you use it, or which way you hold it. Plus they just look good. Sorta an old school retro vibe. But man, are they useful. I have to believe, if Vikings had a Depot back in those days, these axes would have been a very popular seller, lol. Sorta of the Nordic equivalent to a Glock 19, everybody has one as a sidearm because they generally just work when you need them to. Except, with far superior ergonomics. ;- ) For me, there are very few items more useful in your kit than a well proportioned, ideally weighted piece of solid steel purposefully designed to cut, rip, tear, and ultimately sever when you need it. Ten thousand years of refinement hasn't really improved substantially on the basic design. That fact in and of itself is reason to own, use, and train with one.
As I understand it, swords historically have been quite expensive and required a great deal of specialized technique (to make a good sword that would hold an edge and not easily break or chip.) So swords almost universally throughout history have been the “nobleman’s” weapon. A badge of rank, a tool for only one purpose (fighting) and not terribly practical. Spears are dirt cheap, stab better than a sword, and fend off cavalry well. Axes, every man probably has anyway because in the northern forests an axe is an everyday necessity. And they’re not bad as fighting weapons.
I like that you're approaching this question in the CONTEXT of broader military tactics instead of just single combat, as I think the HEMA community can be kinda blind to the big picture sometime. And I think you have a great point that wealth was not a problem for Scandinavia at the time, but in the same discussion you mention that armor was quite rare, and it may be for strategic mobility reasons, but it may also be an indication of low resources. Even if merchants were willing to trade goods with the Norse, they may have had rules against selling weapons or mass supplying weapons. (And I remember reading that Norse hack-silver was not well liked by non Norse merchants, dunno how you'd prove that) I also remember reading that the Norse didn't really have iron mines back then, most of their metal came from bog iron, so even though Scandinavia is quite metal rich, they may not have had access to the full depth of mineral resources. However, I have no idea if the bog iron is true, I'd be very interested to know more about where medieval and migration era folks got their iron.
"....rules against selling"? In the context of the age these were most likely nonexistent and would not have been effective, as prohibition in the face of profit is difficult in our highly regulated governments now let alone then. Agree with your resources statement, which would have made the lower status raiders, soldiers, or crew members less likely to have multiple iron/ steel weapons as they would have been more expensive or the result of successful campaigns.
Current history believes Iron was originally discovered as meteoric Iron by the Hittites of Ancient Egypt who later developed a way to smelt it (talking several 000's of year BC - they kept it pretty secret for as long as they could. Ancient China was next in about 1000 BC and the they later worked out how to properly make cast iron, eventually creating a blast furnace in maybe 1st Century BC. Iron was able to be heated, worked and purified for a long time. This Iron would have found it's way to Europe along with various ways to work it in increasing amounts. The Vikings were well known traders and explorers prior to large scale raiding. Interestingly Sweden was the first country in Europe to use a blast furnace in 1100AD shortly after the end of the Viking age :(
You raised a good point about broader CONTEXT as even the very very best Irons (heck even early steel) would have rust rapidly in any marine environment with out significant protection and maintenance... A sword would be useless during a long sea voyage and chain mail... well... it could seize up while you are wearing it and it's really heavy... on a boat... Where as an axe is much easier to maintain and protect, not to mention more useful on a boat. There is a reason boats were made of wood for a very very long time and their metal fittings mostly brass or similar metals... even after they where first powered by steel steam engines they had wooden hulls... It was almost as if iron and steel didn't like water, especially the ocean...
@@pxrays547 I'm not going to argue that people didn't sell weapons to the Norse. I'm sure some people did. But just as a thought, what if it isn't just the government (king/duke/count...) telling you don't sell swords with the Norse or else. What if it is also the Church telling you don't sell swords to the heathen Norse on pain of excommunication. Does that change the equation a bit?
Worth mentioning is that the graves often have a sword and one or more axes. So even a wealthy person with a sword had an axe. Spear primary weapon, axe secondary weapon and sword last resort weapon?
Possibly swords were viewed as prestigious and were a way to display wealth and status. I’m not an expert on combat but what’s the point of having three “primary weapons”?
Any village blacksmith could make an axe, a knife, a spear tip (basically a knife) or arrowheads. Not to many of them could make a decent sword. That's ore of a specialized art, like making helmets.
The information and analysis on weapons and armour is great, but more I'm just impressed by how long and flowing and natural sounding a talk you put into a single take. most people, and I've been to a shoot from a fellow historical youtuber you know well, might take 5 hours of takes to get 20 mins of edited 'discussion' footage. Its an undrerated skill that you just bang this out in mostly one take without stopping.
Norwegian here with a nordic perspective: An axe has more uses then just killing people, as opposed to a sword. I think this is the real reason axes were a mainstay. It would be useful pretty much every day of your life. One investment that servers as both a primary weapon and a tool. Now if you are rich you don't need to use an axe every day, you got people to do that for you. So you get a sword. Also consider the norse were a continuation of the nordic ca. 2800-2300 BC Battleaxe culture, there might be a cultural, traditional aspect there.
The vikings raided by sea. I wonder if the more prevalent use of the axe was because they found axes useful on board ships, and in ship to ship fighting. The boarding axe was certainly used in western navies during the age of sail.
I think the Vikings (which were just the raiding Skandinavians, not all of them) started out with using axes to utilize as weapons on their raids, since they are more violent than knives, and then they just stuck with axes as a primary weapon, after they saw how well they served them. Maybe they also liked to strike fear into their oponents, and the axe had probably a striking effect upon seeing it being weilded in devastating ways; it probably also looked wild, and the christians were kind of scared of the wild I think. Their oponent would probably also not quite know how to deal with axe attacks as well as with what they already knew. Primarily a tool, then developing into a refined weapon. But who knows 🙃
...it is easy to answer why - axes are cheap, easy to use (by an untrained person) and relatively effectiv... The classic "Viking raid" was performed often by men of low social status. "Going Viking" was more a "privat" event, it has nothing to do with the "official" military campaigns of the Skandinavian kings an princes...
"Going viking" is considered a raid today due to who wrote about it (their victims). Most norse sources calls it straight up war. Harald Hardråde "went viking" when he went to Englang to support some pretender to the English throne agaisnt Harold Godwinson. That is obviously a completely regular war, and he conducted warfare in a fairly regular way.
Axes require some training and practice as well. An axe is considered a tools that is dangerous to the unskilled user. However people might have practice when they have to chop wood for heating and cooking. The aspect of the kind of fighting they were intend for is valid too IMHO. I have quite a bit of practice and precission with an axe. I might be able to use one for some nice sunday afternoon pillaging. My skills with a swords may not allow that. Using one might lead to a trip to the ER. Why? Lots of practice chopping wood with an axe - no real practice handling a sword.
Not only the Scandinavian style of warfare. Good luck building, repairing or maintaining a Long Boat(your ride home) without an axe. Simply put, it really didn't matter who they were, they would have had an axe, been familiar with the axe, was at least minimally skilled in the use of an axe & understood the strengths & weakness of an axe not only as a day to day tool, but as a weapon as well.
You'd have to consider the cultural heritage as well. If we're looking at the viking era you find stuff from all over the world. If we're looking at the 5th and 6th century then selection of gravegoods are much more local and the sword is a more exclusive item (with the axe, but primarily spear- and arrowheads being the most common finds). Axes are relatively common in Vendel period graves. That said, the "axe as a raiders weapon" does have merit. If you're attacking as a raider you're far more likely to outnumber the enemies you're fighting (because if it's the other way around you want to use the fact that you're not weighed down with several kilos of armor to gtfo). And they might have an advantage in terms of armor, so you want to overwhelm them quickly. And here the axe has the advantage that it both hits harder and you can hook the enemy shield. So while an armored swordsman might have a chance against multiple unarmored enemy swordsmen (because they'll have a problem getting around your shield or making serious wounds while you can cripple enemies with even lighter blows) the same is probably not true of multiple enemy axemen because they have to tools to quickly overwhelm a swordsman, even if the swordsman has an advantageous position (like in a doorway).
Most here does see the axe only as weapons... but in my oppinion the axe was more a multitool for seaborn Viking raids. If you look of their ships, they were very compact. Only one deck... below deck was storageroom for food, water and loot. The deck was living area. Those ships were small for the amount of sailors on it. So not much space as in ships of other nations at that time... so you have to choose what to load in the ship (more weapons = less food/loot). Maybe also the reason why the ships are pictured with the shields outside the ship. Imagine now that you do ship raids and raid landings... in that process those ships may get damaged... but you also want to drive home with them. So they need to be repaired sometimes far from home. So my thought is, that they not only used the axes as weapons, but also as tools for chopping trees and work on wood (for example as a slicer) to repair/replace planks, masts, rudder and so on when needed... you can't do it with a sword. So I would think for Vikings on their seaborn raids the weapon of choice was an axe, a knive and a shield (bows and spears can be fast made or looted on destination, if needed)... while on homeland they used everything they had (spears, swords, axes, bows, forks... whatever).
Axes can be used for things other than killing. Axes require much less training to use compared to swords. Axes require less technical ability to make. Maybe not even made by a trained smith. Axes can be very intimidating to the enemy. Imagine hundreds of blood thirsty raiders armed with axes coming at you.
'The French were well known for using throwing axes.' But what was their aim like? If you throw an axe at a Viking, you've got one less axe, and he's got one more.. 😂
Axes were the hand to hand combat weapon of the rookie vikings, those who neither had the money to get one, nor had the experience to get a sword from a battle. Plus, these things were also tools-used on the farm.
And I know, while the first raids pretty much were done out of desperation, what followed in hundreds of years, was mainly greed based. But it is also easy to forget, that many of those that went viking, did so as traders, and did no one harm. It does not excuse those that went in violent Viking. But it broadens the pictures. There is even evidence that Norsemen/Vikings traded along the Silk Road, and even into Africa in later years.
Scandinavians is the name of the people who used the word viking to describe going raiding. So as you said the axe would be favored for fast attacks on unsuspecting people. After all they didn't go VIKING to start a war, they went VIKING to get booty, and things they could later sell like slaves. So the NORSEMEN were the people, and event was to go VIKING.
Moose skin/pels are rare and ekspansive, and easy poked with arrows, and the vikings prefered to trade in reindeer, caribu, Moose is for food, elk skin for the bed and sheep to keep warm
My woodshop teacher actually had some good points about this. He used to plane wood by hand with a Dane axe. Not cutting down trees with it, but shaping the wood and curving it. He didn't make a full longship, but his theory was that it could be done, since he'd made a little rowboat as a personal project using nothing but two axes (and nails and sealant).
Then he'd be wrong. A boatbuilder or ship builder have a pethora of axes (my teacher had 14 different) for different jobs. And he worked with circle and chainsaws to do the rough work. There are many different axes for different jobs. The dane axe is just one other specialization for another job. Having 15 different axes is not going to break the bank compared to having 14.
An axe can 1. Be used as a hand weapon. 2. Can be used as a tool. 3. Is better for chopping through doors. 4. Can be modified with a spike or an opposite blade to make it even more versatile and dangerous. 5. An axe can be thrown, and therefore used as a short distance ranged weapon. This makes an axe a more versatile weapon than just a sword alone.
My two cents: for sure the type of activity (vikings) was a major reason for choosing axes and big knives as weapons: intruding and breaching in houses monastery deposits and churches as you said, plus the fight that will occur mostly in close quarters and ambients with few room to manoeuvre your weapon. Plus, I think also the comfort to wear and easiness of use on boat of such short weapons and lastly, weather and environment (snow, humidity and salty water and air) and effect on equipment, including the burden of maintaining it in good condition.
I agree, although also have an expanding point to add. Versatility. Weapons are a tool, used to achieve (or more effectively or efficiently achieve) a certain result and to resolve certain concerns. Armor, by comparison, would shut down a sword more than an axe; whereas a sword relies much more on the bite of the blade, the axe strikes with far more energy, meaning that, even if not as great as a dedicated bludgeoning weapon, would still ultimately _suffice_ against anyone who happened to be armored during their raids. Similarly, I imagine the hooking mechanics would be very useful at overcoming shields that they encountered in a quick manner and against defenses that might have been more common for them to encounter (if the attack was sufficiently fast, they may not have or have had time to don maille, but may have been able to pick up a shield or similar barrier device). Then axes are also better at doubling up as multitools. While they are not especially good woodcutting axes, some types are adequate. This means carrying less tools (and containers or suspension systems for tools) and less weight, which is a major factor in mobility. While I think they would not have been adequate for any sort of serious construction as other comments suggest, you can do some level of chopping firewood, light-moderate hammering, and so on. So axes may have better suited the raid style of combat (less time spent fencing with comparatively defensive swords, fewer concerns about being shut down by armor, having some allies hook open a shieldwall to rush down a small and ill-prepared force) while also adequately fulfilling multiple needs and minimizing impediments to their mobility. Perhaps those of higher rank, who essentially taxed the looting done by the others, might focus on commanding and thus picked their weapons more for self-defense, therefore having a greater inclination towards swords and thereby playing a role in their supposed prestige, just as with later leading military personnel using a sword and pistol rather than a rifle and bayonet. Also, please consider a video on medieval bombs and hand grenades!
Axe over sword for Scandinavian pirates:--- 1 - Better for ship repair. 4 - Better for smash and run - Breaking in doors. 2 - Cheap. Easily replaceable. 5 - More easily protected from rust around salt water. 3 - Can be re hafted quickly. 6 - Familiarity from lifelong use.
"We're talking about Francia which is now France." *Angry Aachen noises* The heartlands of Francia spread further east than modern day France. And Charlemagne's preferred city was the aforementioned Aachen. Francia gave birth to both France and the Holy Roman Empire/Later Germany.
@@QuantumHistorian he could just say "which is now France and Germany". Or "which encompassed modern day france". And lame joke is lame. Charles the Great was as much Charlemagne as he was Karl der Große.
The term Viking came from a term that literally means to go exploring for new land for farming and that’s y most used axes in my opinion which is probably wrong but I’m curious
Its possible that its a 'fashion' thing, its what people 'do' even when they had access to other weapons etc, whether axes started as a practical or economic thing, they became a cultural thing. 'We' use axes because our dad's did (and they might be quite handy too).
Norway was the last place the axe was a regulation weapon for the army. Fashion played a part in the axes popularity in the Norwegian military all the way up to the 18th century (iirc, might be 17th). It is no surprise if that tradition was present in the norse period as well. On the other hand, in roman iron age (0-300) in Scandinavia, fighting axes was not common at all. Soldiers were quite uniformly equipped with lance, throwing spear, shield and either a fighting knife or spatha (roman blade, germanic fittings). The lances even follows a fashion cycle of a generation, meaning that there were some kind of mass production going on. All the axes are likely tools, even those found in military contexts look more like tools than weapons. The tradition of using axes was not present then, it must have been adopted later.
@@Taeerom they werent also common as weapons in the celtic iron age - atleast not in denmark. Iwe read some ppl trying to connect the emergence of the axe in warfare with the upheval caused by the 6th century disasters such as the Justinian plague and the climate chatastrophe followed by that volcano eruption.
Could another reason be that the Norse traveled by water? I feel like a sword is an expensive thing to lose to rust or in raiding. I feel an axe wouldn’t rust as bad. And I feel that an axe isn’t as big of a deal to lose in raiding.
@@SaulKopfenjager Building axes tend to be of the rather large and unwieldy variety, AFAIK. If you're working on a dedicated building task, you get dedicated tools. However, fighting axes are still useful for lighter work where convenience is much more important than efficiency. Axes are easier to maintain than swords, and lose less efficiency if they get blunt, since they still have their power. I think axes were just overall more convenient and effective for Vikings than swords. There's no single answer, but several that lead to the same conclusion.
Simple to make the head, simple to create a haft, simple to repair, useful as a tool, cheap to outfit an army, and good to catch swords and cutting and percussive damage against metal armor.
As always, a very interesting and thought-provoking video Matt .. my 2 cents' worth would be that yes, I think you're mostly right but I'd argue also on training - growing up in this period, almost everyone would know how to use an axe from boyhood, no need for specialised extra training with a sword; a lot of the "foot soldiers" would be poorer, younger people looking to make a name for themselves and get loot to bring back home, would they grow up with a sword in their hand? Probably not... ; Another thought I had was that whilst a sword is a great sidearm, it's not easy to carry more than one, whereas axes? One could quite easily carry 3 or 4 of them (especially smaller, lighter throwing axes, but also tomahawk sized ones or even slightly bigger/heavier ones), on a belt; Smithing - whilst there certainly were blacksmiths capable of making a sword blade, I'd argue that it was much easier and more smiths were capable of forging axe heads to a high standard, so axes made to order for a person's tastes/usage would perhaps be easier to find than a sword made for them? Even though swords, spears etc could be brought back as loot, what are the chances that it's going to be EXACTLY what you want as a weapon, if it's not confiscated by the leader/better known warriors who'd probably take all the best quality items for themselves... I do totally agree that the offensive weapon set of axe and shield is a great combination for raiders - and it's one we see elsewhere, used by peoples who prize speed, stealth and sudden shock tactics above all else. Keep up the good work, my friend, great to see you looking so well. Take care and stay safe!
I would imagine that they had an edge in that they were the ones to train with axes most and most else did not so they had weaknesses they could exploit in others in the unpreparedness with dealing with axes in combat. Not as extreme as the horse archery the mongolians surprised the rest of the world with in combat but usually newly evolved weaponry or niche weaponry people aren't used to dealing with gives them an edge against opponents strategically or tactically.
One-handed axes hold the position as replacement for swords for people who couldn't afford them in Medieval europe. High and late medieval scandinavian equipment laws for example usually give the people a choice between owning a sword or an axe, and I figure this is how it was seen back in the early medieval period too. You can see this elsewhere in europe too, such as the Bridport Roll from 1451 where the majority of the people show up with swords but some show up with one-handed axes instead. But it also seems clear that if one can afford a sword, that is the more popular pick. The dynamic of who could afford swords changes, so while it's low in the early medieval period they gradually get cheaper to the point that by the late middle ages pretty much all soldiers had swords. There's of course the horseman's axes though, which are as the name implies popular on horseback. They're alternatives to maces and hammers (which are also popular cav weapons). Neither of these are worn instead of swords but are worn in addition to the swords and lances also carried. Two-handed axes are another matter, and they alongside the spear are a staple of medieval european weaponry (probably popularised in the rest of Europe by the danes, but I am not sure on that). They're a popular pick for soldiers, but especially knights, as an alternative to using spears or glaives. They evolve into various forms of great axes, halberds (which are mainly cheaper infantry weapons) and pollaxes (which are mainly knightly weapons, but still used by infantrymen too).
The raw power of the Dane axes can take most armor and shields apart. If you take a hit to your helmet, even it it does not go through. It is still like having a hammer blow to the head, and will knock you out
An eyewitness account of the Vikings by Ibn Fadlan, early 10th century: "I saw the Rūs, who had come for trade and had camped by the river Itil. I have never seen bodies more perfect than theirs. They were like palm trees. They are fair and ruddy. They wear neither coats [qurtāq] nor caftans, but a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves one hand free. Each of them carries an axe, a sword and a knife and is never parted from any of the arms we have mentioned. Their swords are broad bladed and grooved like the Frankish ones. From the tips of his toes to his neck, each man is tattooed in dark green with designs, and so forth." Fadlan, Ibn. Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness (Penguin Classics) . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
One aspect not mentionned is naval warfare. Almost all major Nnorse vs Norse engagements in the viking age were naval battles. Axes are great in that context. In the mediterrenean the Genoese would also use axes.
Dane here. The preference for axes probably comes from a few things: 1) climate, 2) familiarity, 3) utilitarian tool, 4) easy repair, 5) preexisting mastery of wood working, 6) saving on metal and 7) using our body size to our advantage (axes use leverage for damage ~ we're a head taller than other Europeans, then as now). Scandinavian culture tends to be strongly utilitarian in nature - even today we are known for minimalistic and practical design, whether Danish Design or IKEA. That preference comes from living in an Alaska-like environment where carrying around highly specialized tools is a luxury you can rarely afford, because you need tools you can use in most or all situations - or you will die up here. Anybody and everybody in Scandinavia would have known how to swing an axe. You can even use an axe as a throwing weapon for hunting. This preference for utility is particularly expressed by Norse items frequently being highly decorated - but still always on a tool with practical use. Purely ornamental items in Norse culture are rare, tend to be smaller and out-of-the-way. Even in Roman times up to 800 yrs before, only innovations of practical use would cross the Rhine into the North: steel making, advanced wool weaving techniques, beer brewing - but no use for poetry, perfume or wafty silks. The other factor could be saving on metal (a precious material) along with an already existing preference for working in wood: timber is abundant in Scandinavia, it's (obviously) the best material for ships in a landscape that relies heavily on sailing - AND - it is a natural insulator as well in a cold climate (often overlooked abroad). Scandinavians have primarily built houses in wood for that very reason until modern times, still do in Norway, northern Sweden, Finland, Iceland and the Faroes. You can hold an axe-handle in freezing temperatures or a gale when crossing the North Sea, but even resting the front of your hand on a metal crossguard would be uncomfortable - or cause outright frostbite, if cold enough. Also, wood does not corrode with the amount of sailing the Norse did. So, I think you're right about axes being a more offensive weapon for the purposes of raiding, especially in combination with our large body size - but axes were simply also more abundant as tools in everyday life, they are better suited for our domestic climate and everybody knew how to use them. An axe and a large knife, which is exactly what the Norse favored, is basically a highly versatile survival kit - indeed, it's the very same survival kit that was favored by the fur trappers and settlers of North America as recently as the 1800s, for precisely the same reasons: versatility and ease of maintenance. And that is what the Norse were: explorers and settlers - far more often than raiders. EDIT: I forgot to add, that axes are in a sense also more "democractic" if you want to arm your general population - that is, as Schola Gladiatoria also points out, axe heads take much less skill and are far easier to produce locally ~ whereas swords take advanced forges and skilled smiths to produce, in addition to the higher skill threshold to learn how to use. For highly egalitarian-even-democratic Scandinavian culture (things, elected chieftains, etc.), this is a plus because everyone can easily arm themselves - whereas for strongly hierarchical Anglo-Saxon culture this is a real challenge, because an armed peasantry could pose a threat to the nobility, who were keeping the swords for themselves. In that sense, swords also offer a form of social control, that axes actively counteract. Hence, the Scandinavian preference for axes may even be an expression of the fundamentally different social structure governing each society.
I'd like to add that the typical frontier knife in the US was double edged. One edge was kept very sharp, the other was kept much ... rougher? Not as sharp, more for rough shaping.
I forgot to add, that axes are in a sense also more "democractic" if you want to arm your general population - that is, as Schola Gladiatoria also points out, axe heads take much less skill and are far easier to produce locally ~ whereas swords take advanced forges and skilled smiths to produce, in addition to the higher skill threshold to learn how to use. For highly egalitarian-even-democratic Scandinavian culture (things, elected chieftains, etc.), this is a plus because everyone can easily arm themselves - whereas for strongly hierarchical Anglo-Saxon culture this is a real challenge, because an armed peasantry could pose a threat to the nobility, who were keeping the swords for themselves. In that sense, swords also offer a form of social control, that axes actively counteract. Hence, the Scandinavian preference for axes may even be an expression of the fundamentally different social structure governing each society.
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/1WI8ml and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
Axes are the symbol of the fireman. The obviously wanted to save people from the fire they were sometimes staring.
Just learned about the Lombard Axe thanks to you.
"blitzkrieg"... Not really the same thing, given than the "blitzykrieg" was not so blitzy. I think "blitzkrieg" is propaganda from the allies as an explanation for their loss.
Another question: what about the throwability of the axe? The frank axe is meant to be thrown, right? So maybe the viking axe was a throwable axe that also served as a normal battle axe, and eventually as a tool to cut wood, since you need to repair boats to go home. Axes are versatile, but definitely they can cut some wood in case a Drakkar needs repair.
So I guess actual war axes are slimmer ant thinner than more comventionnal axes, but one more question would be, if you don't hit too hard, can a battlle axe be slowly used as an axe to repair a woode drakkar? May that explain the excess of axes? You know, one stone two birds?
“I’ll just grab a Dane axe to illustrate the point” is an evergreen sentence.
This is how every debate with a Viking ends.
"And that's how Vikings win debates!"
"Debates? I thought that's how you win fights."
"Fights? *Those are way more violent.* "
It is a very lovely axe.
That's how I still today debate:"No, I don't need a new vacuum cleaner, no I don't need a new telephone provider...and I definitely don't need a new religion. "
Hold my mead
Known as skilled woodworkers and boat builders, axes may simply have been comfortable to use as muscle memory would likely make them confident to wield. If I worked with a tool on a daily basis, that happened to be deadly, it would likely be my weapon of choice.
Never considered that. Good point.
This line of reasoning, which seems sound, also inherently implies that one HAS an axe to begin with... and that of course is a key factor in what weapon one chooses to use. You have to figure that the average Norse farmer or fisherman probably owned a number of axes of different styles and types.
Good theory. The vikings came from a land where an axe was probably used by everyone once a day at least. Their life and technology was all about wood, for building, shipbuilding, tools, furniture, heating etc. So they were all used to work an axe, irrespective of age or gender, they had the strenght to use it and they simply had the "feel" for it. So little Svein probably had his first spontaneou weapons-training when his mom sent him out in the mornings to chop some kindle-wood for her, so she could heat up their breakfast of porridge, herring and warm mead.
When you go to the Viking museum in Rosskilde in Denmark, they all use axes for most of the rough wood work, so yes highly skilled in using it and forearms of high tensile steel... One blow from a skilled axe man would easier disable a combatant than a sword that doesn't have concentrated weight.... So one blow one enemy out of the fight?
Exactly. They fought with axes because they carried them anyways to do repairs and build new ships. I've heard stories of the Norse/Vikings not only moving some of their smaller ships over land from waterway to waterway but also building entirely new ships on the spot. if the next waterway they wanted to get to was too far away ours much easier to just build a new boat than try and drag your old one 20 miles to the next nearest river. I'm sure that at least one of the crew would have been a shipwright since even in the later eras of the great English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch sailing ships they always had a shipwright onboard abs an axe would have been one of his tools. It would suck going on a major raid hundreds miles a way from home, having your ship get damaged, and getting stranded because you left the guy who was good at ship building at home.
My opinion is pretty simple, I blacksmith; I can repair a wooden haft a lot quicker and dirtier then I can repair a cracked, chipped, bent, or blunted blade. As they where always on the move and trying to do hit and run scenarios as much as they could, simply stopping to repair a broke or damaged sword was not an option I bet, a slightly chipped or dull axe could be ground and a new haft could be mounted, but axes are by and large more durable and easy to repair then swords.
@asdrubale bisanzio : I am german ( of swabian tribe). As descendant of typical wurttembergian ,part time farmers' , so from 1965 to 2001 ( end of farming by my father) i saw the very end of old country life, and heared a lot of old village life. The blacksmiths in former times had often to work with woodworking craftsmen : The waggonmakers, in german Wagner, made the wooden parts of wheels, but the iron wheel ring , had been made and fitted by blacksmiths, according to my father, a difficult work. Also those Wagner/ wagonmakers made not only wagons, coaches, Schubkarren ( don' t know english word), but also ladders and shafts for all kind of tools necessary in villages. ( On the other side of the street of my fathers house lives an over 80years old ,and long retired man who was the last man, learning Wagner in my Landkreis ( Arrondissement? County district? Prefecture?). Also a blacksmiths work was horseshoeing and before Veternarians existed, to some degree still now, they looked for hooves of horses and cattle.
Also ploughs/ Pflüge had been made once from wood, but the ,Schar' , don' t know english word, was made of iron, same with mill maschinry. Also i habe forgotten the barrel and bucket makers, in german Küfer , Büttner, Böttcher, Böttger, Schäffler.... needed iron rings for their produccts.
So in old days , blacksmiths had some knowledge of simple woodwork, but with exeption of cases, a quick repair was necessary, they have not eine this for the very rigid (?) guilds/ Zunft system of former times.
@asdrubale bisanzio that is his point. You do not need to drag a smith or a smithy to replace a wooden shaft.
@asdrubale bisanzio you answered your own question on why a blacksmith was doing woodwork. Good job. Because I am also my own carpenter/bowyer
@asdrubale bisanziob Basic skills. Like carving a handle. Correct. Glad you have a handle on what I said now.
@asdrubale bisanzio exactly. Out at sea. On the move. You don't need much.
Probably the same reasons everyone else used them. Axes are relatively cheap, relatively easy to maintain, are quite effective weapons, double as a really useful tool, and are fairly useful against armour.
Axes also make a much better "persuader" than a sword does. Flip it around and you have a nice beatin' stick for those unruly slaves you're trying to corral.
also backside can be used as a hammer, against heavy armour. it can also hook over shields
yeah, but you would probablz use different axe for chopping wood and chopping poeple - woodcutting axes would be heavier, shorter and more wedge shaped so bcs of that it would be terrible battle axe. Battle axes were nothing like axes you typically see, they were longer and lighter.
The axes used for combat are much much thinner than wood choppers.
RE the armor issue: also remember the Vikings traveled by boat on the ocean. Unless you keep it practically coated with lard, mail will rust, and those thin links will rust through VERY quickly on a long campaign.
I remember seeing a video of one island off the coast of New England and in 20 years every bit of iron in the abandoned village was rusted away. So, I suspect being in an open boat on a salt sea had a lot to do with the lack of armor.
If you pack your weapon in sheep skin they will stay dry
@@mortenjacobsen5673 Well, its not going to help with the amount of salt in the water vapor in the air. And in an open boat in a rough sea NOTHING will stay dry. The sheep skin may help slow the rust, but, in an open boat nothing will protect mail except being rubbed down with heave fat.
@@Wastelandman7000 who said the boat is open? Tent or storage chest, and what about the dry gods and trade items.. The vikings had diffrent ship
I think that this point is also related to axe use--on top of being generally easier to maintain and repair, an axe has a lot less metal than a sword, which means that dealing with inevitable rust is less of an issue. While I'm sure it is possible to pack things away in trunks so that they are somewhat protected, this isn't very practical for raiding, where the object is to take stuff home. The more space you take up with weapons and armor, the less space you have for bringing things home. If you fill your boat with chests for storing mail and swords (which you also want to take home) you won't be able to fit as many slaves and chattel for the return voyage.
Besides, if you're going on a raid and have to fight people who are actually real threats, you're doing it wrong.
Armor expensive. Can protect when not warn to battle. Even in 1700s armor put on before battle.
The Scandanavian penchant for axes seems to go a long way beyond the viking age. The 1274-1276 laws of Magnus Lagobote of Norway specified that a spear, shield and either a "half-thinned axe" or a sword were the basic weapons, with pieces of armour to be added based on income. Men who had received their first wages and couldn't get a full set of weapons in one go were to get an axe first, then a shield, then a spear.
Christian IV's 1604 militia law requires various income levels to equip themselves with different combinations of muskets, halberds, spears, tessacks or axes.
17th and 18th century Norwegian boarding axes tended to have much longer hafts than their southern counterparts, sometimes to the point that they were two-handed, could be fitted with a top spike, and the Swedish axes sometimes had their blade curve up into a thrusting point. That suggests to me that they were much further on the weapon side of things compared to continental and British boarding axes.
Long axes seem to have been a common nordic peasant side arm / dress accesory at the very least untill around 1600. In the scarce depiction of the peasantry from the period, the appear quite reguarily from Ditmarsken and upwards.
In the age of Danish privateering, durring the napoleonic wars. Boarding axes of the swedish design, where apparantly popular amongst privateers from Bornholm combined with shortened muzzle loaded shotguns and blunderbusses ofted loaded with glass or stone shards.
@@erikrungemadsen2081 har du en kilde, jeg vil gerne læse mere, jeg kender mest til pirateriet i Vendsyssel
@@EmilReiko Der er lavet en bog om kaperfarten på Bornholm med alle de registrede Kaper breve samt en oversigt over de tagne priser, jeg skal høre med min far, desuden er der en del familie anekdoter i det, de to traditionelle gårde i familien blev åbenbart købt kontant med prise penge
@@erikrungemadsen2081 gør endelig det :)
“This isn’t going to be an exhaustive video just about [video’s topic], it’s about the *context* of [video’s topic].”
- every Matt Easton content since 2007
Meanwhile, It takes 13 minutes before he comes to the point...
That's the difference between a five paragraph magazine article, and a scolarly, in-depth discussion.
If you're looking for magazine articles, why not just go elsewhere, instead of complaining that the discussion isn't shallow enough?
Imagine if your history teacher stopped midclass to tell you about Raid Shadow Legends.
I've gone on weird tangents about the Europa Universalis and Victoria games several times. Actually works pretty well, since most kids find any video game more interesting than school stuff.
Matt’s gotta make money somehow
@@adamshoneck8590 it's not a criticism necessarily. Just funny to think about
It's coming soon than we expect, I expect.
The future libertarians want lol
The Danes were primarily interested in raiding, so they fought more like pirates, they were more interested in taking slaves and property. If a fight was more costly than it was worth, they would retreat. If you're not interested in losing your life or taking land, it makes sense to retreat. They were also essentially Marines
Matt I don't want to be a pain in your butt, but the video would be even more awesome if you would pop the pictures on screen of the helmets, swords and equipment you are mentioning.
Agreed! With your encyclopedic knowledge you could share a huge amount of visual information by showing illustrations of the things you mention. When I lecture I stand in dim light and let my PowerPoint show what I am talking about.
It’s odd that he does it for some videos but not others.
Im a fan of the, because its offensive, argument. That they fought in a rush style. Damage on shields and shield fragments also suggest their fighthingstyle was far from the passive shieldwall that has been popuralized by hollywood. I in all seriousness think people should look at the zulus for an idea on how a viking age scandinavian warhost would engage its enemy.
I dont give much for the, because they are used to use them as tools… doing woodwork with an axe and fighting with it is two completely different realmes.. the one dosent translate into the other.
It seems many viking raids should be seen less as lightning raid warfare and more like armed robberies.
Chopping up unarmed people, taking their stuff and then running away...... England must have been a pretty rough neighborhood to live in.
I have been arguing this point for years.
@@jm9371 Well, at least the use of axes have come down a bit?
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles the Viking incursions come across as mafia-like extortion schemes made mobile, and able to threaten anywhere with easy access to a watercourse. They were paid huge sums by various kings in exchange for them leaving that king's lands alone. I'm particularly thinking of when the sons of Ragnar Lothbrook were wreaking their revenge on King Ælla.
An ax is the perfect tool to put the smash in smash and grab.
We even have texts saying that the Norse had to pay their taxes in axe blades under the rule of Sweyn Knutsson.
"Taxes in axe blades" was very possibly a kenning for using their axe to pay, I.e working or fighting for the chief/jarl/king. In translation you have to think around corners sometimes.
@@jencrowson From the context it's not men. Cnut the Great asked his lendman, Kalv Arnesson, for 3 dozen axe heads of the best sort. Kalv Arnesson refused to pay, but would gladly pay his son, Svein, the king in Norway at the time. Cnute had promised Kalv the Lade Jarl seat if he fought against King Olav. He didn't keep his promise.
@@eirikronaldfossheim three dozen of your best warriors sounds like a much higher tax than just three dozen fine axe heads.
All good points but remember many going Viking were also younger, poor men lacking land or younger sons away to make their fortune and starting out having limited resources - not having inherited Dad or Granddads sword. Similar to the weapons used by the Fyrd in Britain at the time - A good Axe was probably the best choice to go with a sharp knife and once you have experience you can acquire more Armour or weapons if successful. But remember if you started out and became good with an axe changing to using a sword also needs training in fighting with a sword you might not live long enough
According to the Norwegian book "Vikings at war" by Hjardar and Vike the typical "shopping list" when going viking should be, in order of priority (until you run out of money):
1. Spear (cheap)
2. Shields (cheap, and you need several as they're used up in battle)
3. Helmet
4. Axe (significantly cheaper than a sword)
5. Body armour (chain mail)
6. Sword
@@ollep9142 The best comment here.
@@ollep9142 Seems quite sensible to me.
I would say it's also a tool that is intimately familiar to a shipbuilding culture. They probably got so much "mileage" with an axe outside of any battle, what with building, and camping, logging, etc. that it felt near and dear. An all-purpose tool par-excellence, so it felt comfortable and secure to use it for battle.
Why axes? Do you have any idea how hard it is to break down a door with sword? You ruin a perfectly good Ullfbert, and everybody at the weekend pillaging just looks at you like an idiot. There's not one shieldmaiden in the next ten longboats who will drink mead with you after that fiasco...
Not to mention chopping wood with a spear...
@@martinkafka9510 I mean if you can, that's badass.
You'd get a name like Olaf the Shield Penetrator.
All the shield maidens would notice that ;)
@@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929 People would remember you as a legend.
Yeah. Legendary silly man 😂
Actually I read, if memory serves me, an article that the number of weapon-axes increase in Scandinavia during the Migration Age. The author suggested breaking down doors during raids, might be a reason for this.
@@martinkafka9510 do you really believe anyone would try to cut wood with spear? Do you think humans other then you are idiots? You have an illusioned picture of people around you.
As an added benefit for raiders the axe is relatively low maintenance. Considering the vikings were operating in salt water a lot in a ship with no deck and a lot of ship related maintenance to carry out. It is a weapon, a tool, and easily replaceable.
Good point, if you ask me.
A sword is usually in a scabbard, where moisture (and salt) can hang around and speed oxidation. This is a problem even today, and you need to regularly maintain your swords and check scabbards for moisture retention.
An axe is not usually sheathed, thus nothing around the metal to hold moisture. Sure, the wood could retain water to some degree.
I agree with this - less steel to maintain in a salty marine setting.
which would hold a lot more 'water' if filipines was also famous for using axes :P
@@longpinkytoes While this is more my fault than anything else, to me the Filipino are not famous for any weapons. However, a quick google later, the Filipino seem to favour blade heavy weapons, some of which show a strong resemblance to a machete.
As I said I am unfamiliar with Filipino history, so to me to context of these weapons are missing. Which weapons were used, in the wars of the Filipinos, prior to contact with Europeans, which arose as a result of the colonial wars and which were tools is all information that would be relevant to this answer.
Finally the Philippines is on some good trade routes to access Indian crucible steel which would also influence their weapons development. it could be simply that the people in the Philippines had access to better steel and more of it than the Norse peoples.
@@ungainlytitan1460 swords from 500bc in vietnam bear a striking resemblance to much, much later swords from japan :)
Dwarves aren't barbarians. They are often the most advanced and industrious race.
No they are really hairy angry
Dwarves are described thoroughly in period Norse Mythology
Svartalfheim is depicted as a vast underground world of caves, lit only by the mighty forges that the dwarves use as renowned blacksmiths in the Norse world.
They've brilliantly identified the common weakness of most enemies to being hacked into pieces. With science!
@@BrimleyAvatar
Dwarves did it.
Case closed.
He said dwarves OR barbarians. He never implied that they were the same, only that both are often seen with axes.
The great myth about the Vikings is that they were "all" dedicated warriors and as well trained and equipped as a modern professional soldier. Some of the Housecarl bodyguards of the lords leading the raids would match that description and would have dedicated war axes but the majority of the Vikings on the raids were younger sons of peasant farmers who weren't going to inherit their family's land. Think of them as being "sharecroppers" who were pulling an oar and carrying a shield for the promise of a share of the loot or a farmstead if the raid they were with decided to settle down. They were a prime example of the adage "quantity has a quality all of it's own".
They'd have minimal weapon training beyond throwing spears while hunting or scuffling with other boys in their local community. As you mentioned their primary weapon set would be a spear and shield and if they had to carry another weapon it would be a seax style long knife or a hatchet that was as much for chopping wood for firewood and building shelters as it was a weapon.
For untrained and inexperienced troops, having a weapon that has limited options works to their advantage as they're less likely to freeze up in a stressful situation as they try and figure out which of the dozen or so options to use that a more advanced weapon like a sword would offer. "Get in close. Body slam them with the shield. Then hit the Saxon pig like you're chopping kindling for you Gran'. " is advice that will keep a novice alive a lot more often than showing them all of the different guards and parries that a sword would offer.
Thank you for making this point so that I didn't have to!😁 Not that Matt's theory isn't feasible, but this is just what came to my mind as a reason for the disproportionate use of axes by the Norse raiders.
Presumably the ship owner would try to get some known fighters on board, if necessary by promising them a higher share or a flat payment - maybe you don't want to go out with Rolf and his ship, but if you hear that Ragnar and Leif have both signed up then wow, he MUST have a good plan. You get enough skilled men to take care of whatever local defenses you might encounter, but fill up the boats with young men because they are much cheaper, so more is left for you. After all, you have to pay for the ship's upkeep and a few months of supplies.
When the raids aren't just owners of ships going for a smash-and-grab looting but actual nobility or would-be nobility trying to take land, they ought to take far more known men with good weapons - not only will they have to stand and fight if they are attacked, but the leader setting themselves up needs to assert authority over the settlement, and the combination of prestige from hiring well-known fighters and the ability of those men to enforce your rule by violence would be vital top that.
I think it is important to remember that the people hardest hit by raids, for the longest period of time were the Scandinavians themselves, ship based raiding was probably endemic in Scandinavia long before the Viking age - and its really the adoption of sails, that gives old boys transitioning into adulthood the ability to also strike beyond Scandinavia and its immediate areas.
Silver John: I am german, of swabian tribe. In those days, when levies (?)/ Aufgebote of tribes, clans or regions had been largest parts of armies, the leviemen had often only their own weapons, depending on their wealth, so the poorer men often had only a knife as sidearm and a tool or sometimes only a Baseball bat like club as polearm. ( See the armament of Highland clans at Culloden 1746) . Military training? Perhaps with spears or bows in medieval time, when allowed to them. Wrestling, street- , stick- and knifefights also, so the leviemen had not been totally inexperiemced. Really trained had been nobles and knights ( and their nordic counterparts in medieval/ viking age) and the men of their retinue(?)/ Gefolge. This retinue men and perhaps some mercenaries had been the only professional soldiers really trained in military weaponry.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Id think similarly to the way a bounty was shared between crew on a 18th century naval ship in that rank would decide the percentage of the cut. They would also accumulate better arms the more raids they went on.
I just spent eight months living in a tent, I made a lightweight hatchet, similar dimensions to the smaller axe he has here. It got me through the winter in Cornwall (not too harsh but cold enough).
...While there, this question popped into my head (as my beard grew) and it just seemed obvious that, if you want a lightweight kit, for trekking, surviving in the wild and raiding, an axe is by far the most practical weapon/tool to carry. ...If you carry a sword, you're likely to need an axe too, but if you fight with an axe, that's literally all you need to carry.
...And that means more loot too - rather than going into a raid already carrying a full load.
An axe could also be potentially be useful for running repairs to a boat (well, perhaps, more useful than a sword anyway - could carve an oar for example with an axe) and, obviously, building a shelter.
A boat builder (*very* traditional!) demonstrated an axe so sharp that you could *easily* shave with it. Re "as my beard grew".
I partially disagree with the idea it has little to do with resources, I think it has a lot to do with resources (but of course not only). It is true that Norse people as a whole did have access to things if they wanted. But I argue that, other than more official military campaigns that were their own thing, the raiding vikings (i.e. norse pirate raiders), weren't exactly the "we doing great here" people. People always talk about the named ones, kings and lords and what nots, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the raiders were overall not the "we could easily buy better if we wanted to" types.
Another indirect way I think it is related to resources is, axes are far more expendable than a sword. You're going on a raid, it is a dirty and quick job, 50-50 change of you taking some good loot or running for your life in retreat cause it just isn't worth it. Sounds to me like the kind of context you might want to take whatever you can afford to lose, maybe even literally throw away at the enemy to slow them down as you retreat as light and fast as you can. Also, being maritime for days or weeks at a time, and frequently so. Their low, open boats boats, so close to humidity, sounds like the kind of environment that just wants to ruin your pricier sword before you even get to use it, while your axe would be much easier to maintain, and worse case it is a mace now, and if it really gets ruined, big deal, cheap stuff.
It's mainly that everyone had one because you needed it just to build and maintain a hovel much less a boat. They were also much simpler as a tool than say a saw it a file.
And much more practical than say a spear.
@@horseblinderson4747 I am sorry, but that doesn't work. They didn't live in hovels, and didn't live in wooden houses more than the rest of Europe either. The usefulness of an axe as a tool was exactly the same for pretty much all of Europe, at the very least, at the time.
And the idea an axe is more practical than a spear is absolute, honestly, it is pure gibberish. Be it from the pov of anyone who practices those weapons, be it from the known fact spears were norse and vikings most common primary weapon, they only favored the axe as a sidearm.
I was just thinking that about maintenance aspect.
I was just thinking that about maintenance aspect.
I suspect that part of the problem is that everyone is thinking it is an either or proposition, and not a both proposition.
What we know is that more axes are found than normal, but swords were also found, and we do not know how many men dropped how many weapons. I can see how as a raider i might want both, and i certainly wouldn't leave a perfectly serviceable axe on the boat when i do not know who or what i might encounter.
The Great Axe has another advantage you don't mention. With a Great Axe I can hook and manipulate the opposing side's shields to create an opening for the spears on my side. It can also reach past my first rank if I am in the second rank as a response to my spears getting rushed. See this often in larger battles in the SCA and Jomsviking type styles.
Very true!
To me the distinction should be made more often between peasants raids and soldiers raids.
Private raids led by a boat owner were the first and most frequent, employing common men who used what they had : their one handed tool axe as their main sidearm.
Then later came the professional raids led by Chieftains, Jarls or even Kings, who launched raids with well equipped troops. They had professionnal gear : swords as their main sidearm.
In the Heimskringla (Saga of the kings of Norway) swords are extremely prominent compared to axes. Surprise surprise the Saga talkes about professionnal norse soldiers.
I feel there is another case to be made, Norse warriors used axes a lot because the axe was an important tool to the typical Norseman. Carpentry, fire wood, boat building, the axe would be a tool that a lot of norsemen would be used to and that could be converted into a useable weapon with very little modification.
An excellent example of the actually comes from England. In the later medieval period the most common polearm was perhaps the billhook. A weapon created from a common agricultural tool that most of the English peasant class had access to and knew how to use.
Or the Hussite flail and/or Okinawan martial arts.
It's fair to say as well, that we militarize the tools we have available. If everyone knows how to use an axe, it's not a giant leap to using them for fighting, especially when the axe gets a redesign. Spears aren't that different to farming tools, but swords are quite different from knives. A war axe is not so different from an axe you might otherwise use. But a sword is. Not a huge logical leap.
I thought the same. Last week came from camping trip in forest and used axe a lot and was thinking that axe is versital tool and important in context of constant travel. And for carpentry work thin blade axe is better. Wide chopping axe is good only for chopping. In trip I used axe to make a simple bow for kids.
@@andrisberzins9053 True however at the time a single axe would need to be capable of a variety of jobs, in this case I believe that the workhorse of axes was the Norse's signature bearded axe.
A fighting axe is a very different axe than a felling or splitting axe.
@@ScottKenny1978 That's partly my point... The bill was an agricultural tool but the English modified it for use in warfare. The Hussite's likewise did the same with the flail. Even the seax knife that was commonly used by the Norse was also a weapon of war as well as a tool.
20:00 A lot of viking raids "happened" around the Baltic coast though. Knowing this I would hesitate in saying that the Norse used axes more often than their enemies seeing how axes were also very popular among Slavs and Balts. I mean, there is a literal crap-ton of axes of many different sizes from that region too while any findings of swords are a rarity in comparison to the rest of Europe.
Wasn't this mainly swedish vikings though? Danes and norwegians went west and swedes went east?
Don't worry about the Swedes, if there's water, it's a good chance that the Norse went there, North, South, East or West!!!
@@macharim No, Danes couldn't exactly ignore their surroundings as they too were raided both by their fellow Scandinavians and Western Slavs.
What exactly is a literal crap-ton? Is that comparable to a ton of steel, for instance?
The crap-ton is a metric measurement equal to 10 metric fuck-loads. The old imperial fuck-load is larger, about 7.5 to the imperial shit-ton.
There's also a religious aspect to it, the "axe god" which later evolved into modern day Thor/Donar. Ancient axes used to have an axe head on one side and a hammer head on the other, thus leading to the axe/hammer god dichotomy. The sharpened axe half was used for everything from combat to cutting leather and meat, with the hammer half being used for building. Thus the axe/hammer became sort of *the* tool for the working man at the time. Thor/Donar was seen as the god for the common working man at the time and it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to imagine people using his axe/hammer in an attempt to better emulate their diety.
I would reccomend checking out the video "Thor's Hammer or Axe Historical?" video by ThegnThrand for more information.
There is also the possibility of rust being a factor, which is going to blunt and destroy a sword much faster especially if you are raiding and sailing over the sea in an open ship. Also the temperatures in winter around the arctic might have made swords become more brittle and easier to snap or break against hard stuff.
You could also just bring a bunch of Axe heads in your ship and quickly manufacture the Axe handles once you land. This would save both weight and space on the ship for more important things to help survive the trip.
Good point overall, but keep in mind Vikings stayed home in the winter. You probably don't want to be in a longboat when temperatures are freezing or near freezing.
I don't think rusting is a significant factor. They know how to maintain sword like maintain their chain mail.
@@chengkuoklee5734 That is a large oversimplification. Other than the words rust and maintaining and higher abstraction concepts, the two actual processes have little in common. There are different levels and kinds of effort involved, different damages to the objects involved, different ways performance is impacted, different costs in resources and time, different times for rust to penetrate, different whole bunch of things that makes both things not very alike except in a talk about it kinda way.
I'm glad I actually read the comments before I made mine. Yeah, I was going to say that!
Pax
Think of these two headlines:
“Man cut by sword - nasty wound”
“Man hacked to pieces by a battle axe - blood and body parts everywhere, the most horrible thing I ever seen”.
I’m no historian, but it seems to me that an axe is a far better weapon to have aboard ship than a sword. And as Matt said, if a weapon is pulling double duty as a siege tool to chop through doors and other fortifications, then the appeal of the axe seems obvious.
Jason, I hope to add a full reply in the general comments, but it would be a total pain in the arse to maintain a sword (of that era) in a maritime environment unless you coated it in grease and never used it or even removed it from the scabbard. The question then, could you even draw it quickly?
I totally agree, the axe was much more practical.
Pax dude. (a general comment to follow)
@@conmcgrath7502 it wouldnt be that hard to maintain a sword if done diligently. They had no problem maintaining mail in wet conditions
@@roderickclerk5904 I have to concede your point and for sure, if your life literally depends on it, arms and armour will definitely get a lot of attention and maintenance. It seems to me, that an axe is just simpler 'all round' and there's no worry it will break at a crucial moment?
I appreciate that a well made sword is in some sense, the ultimate killing tool whereas an axe is a tool that can also function as a dangerous weapon?
Forgive me if I repeat a comment from elsewhere, but how many years does it take to become proficient with a sword?
By comparison, swinging an axe doesn't exactly require a manual.
If you consider the 'shield wall' as the preferred fighting style, then up close and personal (in a crush) a sword is more a liability, it's just a big awkward knife in such a scenario, whereas an axe, even without a swing, has weight, impetus and can stun or pull shields aside.
Ok, in personal one on one combat, I would prefer a sword, it's got range, speed balance and lethality where-as an axe just has mass.
Put 200 sweaty men together and start raining blows with axes (even half held) upon the foe, the swords (please excuse the pun) just won't cut it, those guys will get trampled down and finished off with spears/seax's as the fight moves on.
Something nobody has referred to (I think) is the actual size of those men, they were giants by comparison to some races.
i'm not small, 5ft 11 and a half inch to be exact, I'm not fat and it would be honest to describe myself as a middle-weight in terms of body-build, not muscle-bound but not weak either? My point is this, I had cause to work in Scandinavia, even the urinals were almost too high, every man I spoke to, I had to look up; they are big, imposing men, so give them a large heavy weapon and they will 'twat' you aside to get to the real fight!
Was that an answer or a diatribe?
'effed if I know, but respect to you sirrah, my hat is doffed in your general direction,
pax vobis.
i think you also need to think that every piece of equipment you take on your " Raid ( or a Viking ) " would have to be carried back which mean less you can steal ( take ) from your target. I feel the Axe is just more useful than a sword in this case
@@tafnac75 I cannot disagree, but they had big boats, plenty of room for 'hack-silver' even if they removed some ballast to do it.
Matt: You might consider locking down your ISO at the acceptable level because, in your current set-up, as you move in and out from the camera and, in particular, tilt the shield, the light levels rise and fall due to the the auto ISO feature you're employing. Just a suggestion.
To be fair a lot of us never even look at the video and just listen to it like a blog. The only time I even look at the video is to skip the advertisement for "Raid Shadow Legends!"
The median person who went 'viking' - i.e. raiding - were poor (financially disadvantaged) young men.
My (limited) understanding is that wealthy ship owners would organise the raids, but a lot of young men with few resources would be attracted/recruited as the fighters. The lure of raiding for these younger men was to become wealthy fast... even if the the ship owner got the lion's share of the profits.
In the context of an over populated Scandinavia, where wealthy (older) men could have multiple wives, younger men trying to 'make it big' through raiding makes a lot of sense. How else to make enough to buy land and settle down? If so, the same relative poverty that attracted these men to raiding would rule out buying (or inheriting) a sword. They would have make do with axes.
A fair proportion of these young men would die before they could afford better kit, so more poor young men would have to take their place.
Again, they would be forced to use axes.
So that could be a good social/economic argument for a culture of axe-wielding.
This hypothesis also would account for prestige existing around sword ownership.
I would have to disagree. You could make a lot of money raiding, and depending on the individuals culture it might be preferred to live a life of warfare for the sake of wealth, honor or religion.
Presumably the ship owner would try to get some known fighters on board, if necessary by promising them a higher share or a flat payment - maybe you don't want to go out with Rolf and his ship, but if you hear that Ragnar and Leif have both signed up then wow, he MUST have a good plan. You get enough skilled men to take care of whatever local defenses you might encounter, but fill up the boats with young men because they are much cheaper, so more is left for you. After all, you have to pay for the ship's upkeep and a few months of supplies.
@@UnreasonableOpinions Sounds pretty plausible. The experienced ones would be your leadership cohort too; telling the younger ones what to expect, and what not to do. They'd be less shaken by brutality and be able to act as internal enforcers if necessary. And, like you said, they could bring martial credibility.
Still, I suspect Ragnar and Leif would demand credibility too - they'd have a better idea of what costly incompetence looks like. Since they might not credit promises from someone too clueless to keep them alive, that ship owner might need some positive personal qualities to impress them with (apart from his ship).
This conversation is starting to sound like the beginning of a guide: 'Norse Raiding for Dummies'.
Pish posh, raiding was a family Ventura or holliday or intermarried families form a clan, you did not go down to the local ship Wright and just buy a boat you had to commision it, devote resourses and Manpower, and the farms and industries where run year round, and dont forget that in Norway we have this thing called "dugnad" so the entire town might have pitched in. Children where sendt of as servants to learn trade and skilles so education and skilles where more worth than money
Norse inheritance law gave the farm only to the oldest son. All the others had to find wealth by some means
Fun fact: Harold and Tostig are 100% Norse names
Tostig is, but Harold has Old English origins according to most of the etymologies i've seen.
@@Matt_Alaric Harold is an adaptation of Old Norse Haraldr, the native form would have been Hereweald
Nice helmet, Mr. Easton!
One of my favorite parts of watching mat, you never know what he's going to bring on to the video.
Looks well polished
You missed the most important benefit of the axe: as you rush up to attack someone you can yell, "I need to axe you something!"
Axes probably made for very decent sidearms in that period because unlike swords, you can carry them with your shield hand and still use a round shield pretty much just as effectively as without. Switching to your sidearm is much faster that way and can be done during an exchange of blows. So when you're wielding a spear, your opponent just knowing that you might carry an axe in your shield could keep them from rushing you down.
Also a little fun fact: The German saying for "to be up to no good" is still "to carry something in your shield"
What a glorious saying.
The trick of keeping a sidearm in your shield hand might be easier with a strap-gripped shield, rather than a boss-gripped shield. But I'm not a arguing very hard either way, as anything one carried (even small) would still be mischievous.
Thanks for the German adage; it's a bit of living history.
Hey we have the same saying in Dutch... "Iets in je schild voeren." Literally translating to "Something in your shield carrying". Meaning to have a secret plan, or something along that line.
@@righteousindecision2778 Not at all. You would lie it along the grip and wrap your fingers around it. It would basically lie flat along the back of the shield and rest seamlessly in the fingers. It would feel like a fatter grip is all, but shouldn't cause problems.
The D&D dwarf king Bruenor Battlehammer has a magical round shield, and when he reaches behind the back of that shield, it produces a neverending supply of invigorating flagons of ale. So he's up to all kinds of good!
Sounds like a well thought out argument to me :) I do wonder whether swords are harder to maintain when you are spending a lot of time near salt water. Not a crucial factor, I sure those who took swords with them coped. But would it have been awkward enough to be a contributing factor?
It's interesting that you mentioned the highland clans because I was thinking that that use of the axe (sparth axe, etc) among the Gallowglass fits this understanding of the axe as an offensive weapon. Additionally, many of the Gallowglass were of norse decent and may have inhereted much of their martial tradition. The Gallowglass had to be effective in the raid intensive style of Irish warfare of the middle ages and renaissance. Also, if I recall in many of their encounters with the Elizabethan era English they seemed to very quickly either win the field, or be slain. Even though they were heavier infantry than other Irish units, they still preferred ambush tactics. In other words, their military strategy was not centered around battlefield endurance, but rather an aggressive attack meant to break the enemy.
This would also be supported by the use of javelins which are useful in breaking enemy defenses by lodging themselves in shields and eventual adoption of the large two-handed swords that became synonymous with Gaelic warfare.
Why did they use axes? Can you imagine having an axe but not using it?
The Norse have a culture of axes going back to the Neolithic times. They weren't just making them for weapons, they were part of daily life as a tool in various forms. Even today the best axes are made in Sweden (Gransfors Bruks).
Well, if you live in a winter wonderland, you better be able to chop firewood...
Note that varied axes were made for different purpose. Battle axes needed length and shape to cut armor points to poke cut and hook opponents and not be too heavy. Not good for cutting trees or building boats or cabins.
@@amcamc4423 Yup, just go look at the line of axes offered by Gransfors Bruks. They vary in design even when just a tool depending on their specific use.
Makes sense. There is much more Iron in Sweden.
What was coming into my mind:
Less metal. Less blade.
-> Less rust while on traveling, less maintenance on general.
2:03 Not even three minutes in and we already got both Context and Penetration ^^ Doesn't get any better than this.
Context?
@@SaulKopfenjager 0:14 Sweet, sweet context :D
Sometimes I think we over analyze things. My father, who’s ancestors were Scandinavian, said his relatives were always very practical and frugal people. At the time of the Northmen, in a land of limited resources, I think they would have acted the same way. Axes were readily available, easy to make, repair, use, buy, and trade without too much expense, rather than a really good sword.
This Brit just wants to see how many times he can call Nordic people “offensive”. I see your game Matt :)
Hang on. People got offended by that word nowadays?
He is talking about Norse raiding, looting, plundering and raping their way through the isles and being offensive. That's why it's a fun word play joke.
Brits are extention of Vikings
So, as someone who is active with Norse living history, I think it's a combination of the points that you made, points others have made (namely ease of repair), and the simple fact that not every Viking was a raider. An axe is indeed as much a tool as a weapon, far more so than a sword.
Every viking is a raider. Viking is a profession, someone who goes on vikangr, a raid.
What you meant was "not every norseman/scandinavian was a raider"
@@dango470 Very true, very true.
If he was not a raider, he was not a viking.
In general, I suspect your assertion that it stems from the raid being the most common sort of combat carries good weight. There's something else implied by the nature of seaborne raiding, though.
Speculation alert: might some of the axes' prevalence relate to how reliant they were (as a collection of peoples) on the sea? Sure, swords have scabbards, but given the likelihood of prolonged exposure to moisture and the general increase in size of swords over the period meaning significantly increased surface area, I wonder if there were concerns about the amount of time and effort required to keep them in good condition which were somewhat greater than for many other nations who spent (comparatively) less time on the sea. Moreover, while rust is not a good thing for any weapon, if such were a consideration, a bit of rust on an axe head would be far less likely (in the extreme cases) to compromise it's structure and function.
Again, this is little more than speculation on my part.
I agree with the speculation. Their long boats had little protection from the elements, were very close to the water, your steel is not protected at all from the salty humidity of the sea, or even salty water. Axe head, gets a bit of rust, easy to clean up the edge, worse case you still have a weird mace. Even if one could afford a sword at home, it would be wasteful imo to take it in a simpler raid (and even in more organized campaigns, you would get at least some people who would prefer the guarantee of a working sideweapon and easy of required maintenance).
I also imagine with more chaotic hit and run attacks losing your weapon could be a greater risk, and while a lost axe can be easily replaced, replacing a sword is damn expensive.
Carrying an axe as a sidearm, is just as easy, if not easier, as carrying a sword. To me, an axe is more useful on board ship than a sword would be, and more useful against armored opponents (swords really are rubbish weapons against armor). Even against individuals not in armor but in layers of clothes, an axe will be more effective. If you're wanting to take an individual down quickly, an axe is the weapon for the job.
Not to mention the fact that they’re a common tool and much cheaper than a sword
@@sawyere2496 true. From what I can gather, a number of the Norsemen that went in viking were younger sons who wouldn't inherit anything, and they would need to buy their own land unless they wanted to work as a farmhand for their older brother. The first weapon (other than a spear) they would be able to afford would be an axe.
Kinetic energy in delivered foot pounds per square inch x 200% Berserker Rage damage increase, +20 XP for each Critical Hit...
Yup, the math checks out.
Well Internistin is that swords seemt to be used a lot against armored opponents untill plate came in use
@@giftzwerg7345 just because they were used against armor, don't mean they were effective.
Buy a cheap axe, use it to take an expensive sword.
...and there it is. It wouldn't be a scholagladitoria video without the "maybe it is, maybe it isn't a double entendre" talk about *penetration.*
This is pretty deep.
They even named their axes,
Here are some of the names from the sagas.
Rimmumgýgr = Ambushing troll-hag
Skogsgýgr = Outlaw troll-hag/forest troll-hag
Galdrsgýgr = Moon-howling troll-hag
Genja = Scream/Startle
Skráma = Startle
Skaði = Hurt/Injure
Saxa = Chop off
Snaga = Gnaw/Stump
Randgríðor = Shield-coveter
Svartleggja = Blacken
Himintelgja = Sky-high chopping
Stjarna = Star
Skeggja = Bearded
Barða = Beard
Hell = St. Olav's Two handed axe.
They are also described poetically as:
Hamartröll = Mountain crest/peak/hill troll
Grand hjalms = Damager of helmets
Bryðja randa = Eater/breaker of shields
Randgalkn = Shield beast (as in beast of shields)
Galli meginhurðar Gauts = Damager of the mighty door of Odin (a synonym for shield)
They named weapons in general, not just axes.
I think the "lack of resources" argument could potentially hold some merit. Sure, Vikings might have had a lot of resources and access to captured weapons on account of all their raiding, but they did not _start_ off that way. When Vikings first started raiding, they would have been relatively poor and insular. It would have been easier to make an axe than a sword, leading them to initially adopt axes more frequently than swords. And by the time they accrued the resources and access to have a choice in the matter, the Vikings might have at that point developed a cultural heritage leaning in favour of the axe, as well as developed tactics and strategy more suited to the axe than sword.
After all, if Matt is saying that the tactics Vikings used made using axes more suitable than swords, the question that raises is why the Vikings developed and/or opted for such tactics in the first place. Ultimately, it's about their circumstances; i.e. due to limitations in their resources initially, Vikings adopted the axe more frequently than the sword; leading them to develop tactics and strategies that worked best with axes. And by the time they had the luxury of choice, they had ample evidence that they were on a winning combination with axes.
I think there is a lot to this. We know that the Norse raids were to a large extent driven by a lack of land in Scandinavia. It would therefore make sense that certainly the early raiders were basically farmers (maybe led by warrior elites) bringing with them their normal cutting tools, e.g. an axe. The video says that some of the axes used (e.g. Danish great axe) were not great for say wood cutting, but those were later specialised axes. I have an axe in my house designed for wood carving. However, if the local chief came around and said 'let's go across the sea and make some money, because this place sucks' I would probably grab that.
Later on, more specialised weapons were developed based on early successes.
The Norse exported iron since several hundred years before the vikings. The Norse had several specialized axes for all sorts of jobs. A boatbuilder would have at least 3, probably 7 different axes for different aspects of making logs into a boat or ship. To think they used those very specialized tools in battle, and not just make another specialized tool for battle is an utterly ridiculous notion.
While going viking was often motivated by a lack of land, it was not motivated by poverty. Poor people can't afford to outfit a ship like that, not to mention the men to crew it. "A lack of land" in this case means "a lack of land that doesn't have a king stronger than me". Going viking is the pursuit of ambitious young men with nice families to turn their privileged youth into riches and fame. Perhaps enough to launch your own bid at a petty kingdom back home.
Popular culture has absolutely poisoned your minds about who or what a raider, or viking is. It is not a poor, ragged, fool that grab a pitchfork to go steal some pigs. They were posh, douchebags, that hit fast and professionally, took your shit, and to add insult to injury, they looked better than everyone else (at least according to English priests).
And clauseIV, you shouldn't take your carving axe to fight. Use that axe to make a spear shaft, and that alone (wihout tip) is a far better weapon. Your axe is perhaps twice the weight and half the length of a fighting axe. To fight with it is pure fantasy.
Sweden has the most abundant iron ore in Europe...Bog iron was also very common in Denmark.
@@Taeerom As with any army, of course the leaders are going to be wealthy and they would be the ones who owned and built the ships. However, I would contend that the vast majority of vikings who weren't the leaders are going to be the average peasant of the time - namely farmers, fishermen, craftsmen, etc. - who aren't going to be brimming with expendable income. There wouldn't be nearly enough rich people at the time for vikings to be comprised entirely of the rich.
As for motivations, I don't think it has ever been firmly established why the Norse went raiding. The ones you cite are theories that have been put forth, but are one of many others that have been put forth.
And in relation to your earlier comment that Norse workmen would have several different specialised axes for different jobs, this would further explain why they would opt for axes - familiarity with how it handles in the hand compared to a sword, as well as a cultural affinity towards them.
It seems to me that axes will have been extremely effective against mail armor. In fact, I'm surprised the axe wasn't more popular. With a sword, to be sure of doing serious damage to an enemy in mail armor, you have to aim for gaps or unprotected parts. You could get lucky, and break a bone with blunt force, even with a sword, but swords aren't made for impact force, and depending on luck is foolish. With an axe, no luck is needed. If there's a bone where you strike, it'll break. Because the edge was shorter, focusing the force, a sufficiently hard blow would probably even punch the mail through skin and flesh. Mail really sucks at stopping blunt force and hard impact, and is most useful against cuts.
Perhaps the real question is "why didn't everyone else use axes more"?
Reach. That's why main arms were spears. And side arms were mostly for defense and survival. When you swing your sidearm in a "don't come near me" effort, the extra length of a sword matters more.
In an honor guard the greataxes would have an additional benefit, they look imposing. If they additionally are able to control a decent amount of space, they would be exelent for bodyguard duty.
If I remember corectly, the varangian guard also made use of big axes when protecting the emperors
Yup, I also wanted to mention the Varangian guard.
Here are some constructive criticisms. I could just write a short comment saying that you're saying a lot of misinformation, but instead I have taken the time to do this so that you can take something away and improve your knowledge of the period which clearly needs work as there are some massive "re-enactorisms" and pieces of "inherited wisdom" in here. I have noticed in the past that your period knowledge needs more work the further you get from military sabre and this is no exception. I have had to be blunt because there is a lot of information to impart so please take these comments in the constructive spirit they are intended.
This is all riding on a big assumption that they did use axes more than other early medieval warriors, which in itself is very flawed. We have very few sources describing such things and none that I'm aware of actually pointing towards this specific quandary. I understand that you have to make clickbaity videos but going off modern assumptions doesn't help.
As for referring to them as "Norse" rather than "vikings", I respect your choice not to call them "vikings". It's heavily dependent on the action of raiding and by the end of the "viking" age they hadn't really done that for 50 or so years. Plus it ignores Scandinavians in the contexts where they are not raiding but form standing armies. are inside Scandinavia, etc.
However, calling them "Norse" is equally as problematic. The Norse and Danish cultures differed, and referring to all Scandinavians in the early medieval period who also raided as "Norse" ignores the other cultures there. You are better off just using the term "Scandinavian" for this.
When you talk about the sword, you say that spathae are cavalry swords. I think the Roman army from the 3rd century onwards would disagree with you there ;)
The spatha was adopted by infantry and cavalry alike.
You also said "if you were super lucky you could get your hands on a crucible steel sword like an ulfberht sword". The study of metallurgy in swords, and particularly on ulfberht swords is extensive, but does not show any kind of crucible steel. The studies that have been done (all based upon the foundational work by Alan Williams) show that the only thing we can tell with regards to the steel used is that it is hypereutectoid.
Whilst crucible steel is hypereutectoid, so is bloomery steel.
Alan Williams himself purported the idea that it could be crucible steel based on this, and it has absolutely zero basis and is purely fantasising. Unfortunately this has led to a common misconception and myth. ulfberhts are just made of good quality bloomery steel, as was produced in the Rhine region where nigh on all the blades for these swords were made. If you want to read more on this I recommend Alan's original work, or this page which goes into significant detail: www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/backbone/rb_4_3.html
On your comment on Anglo-Saxon shields being smaller. You are getting confused. The small shields from Anglo-
Saxon burials are from early Anglo-Saxon burials in the migration era. We don't have later grave goods after Christianisation because grave goods and burying people with things was a pagan custom. All the Anglo-Saxon burials you are describing are well before the viking age. Anglo-Saxon shields in the viking age are the same size as the paradigm of other shields of the time, and we see this from numerous manuscripts. They don't just keep using smaller shields.
The trend for these smaller shields is a general migration period thing, not just from Anglo-Saxon burials.
The claim that Anglo-Saxon shields are smaller is just wrong I'm afraid.
Your comment about how helmets sit on the head is also wrong. There is no evidence for suspension in the viking age, and the evidence we have all points towards padded liners rather than later suspension style liners or spiders.
As for helmets with cheek pieces, the Anglo-Saxon ones with those are 7th-8th century (pre viking age) with a potential stretch to mid 9th at the latest due to the Aberlemno stone. But that would be at the absolute latest and they would not have been common. So making any kind of statement about the commonality of helmets with cheek pieces like you did is unfortunately unfounded.
As for "a few" having aventails, only the coppergate helmet does. I'd be very interested to see any kind of source you have on another surviving viking age Anglo-Saxon helmet doing that.
You said some don't have nasals - again, not something we can evidence to the viking age in NW Europe at this time. We see that lots in the migration era in the form of Germanic bandhelms but there are basically zero finds that are appropriate to the viking age so again, that claim is unfounded.
Your next claim that the items you described are the standard equipment then is also flawed for the reasons I mentioned. A big one being that the shields of that style were a thing in the migration era but not by this point.
Saying that the typical sidearm was a sword requires a large caveatting to being within the status of people who could afford them. But you said "for most people" - that just isn't true.
Your discussion about the prevalence of Frankish swords being found in Scandinavian hands being evidence of them being stolen through conquest is also entirely hearsay. We have far more evidence that they were traded there than evidence of them being looted so you're very much overamplifying the argument that they were won in conquest. I appreciate that you acknowledged the trade but the simple fact is that trade dwarfs looting to the point where it is inconsequential. Over 90% of sword blades from all of this part of Europe in the period were made in the Frankish empire then exported and fitted up locally. It was trade, and having an expensive foreign sword showed wealth and buying power.
The English swords found in Norwegian contexts were often also traded.
Next you say (and I am paraphrasing here) that "we have sources from text, archaeology, and art supporting the use of axes more than others". You do not then go on to name a single source that supports this argument. You just say "oh yeah the sources support it trust me bro".
You then go on to talk about franciscas - an item that died out well before the viking age.
You then basically talk about how 11th century England was a mix of Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon culture due to the invasion by Cnut. Whilst this is true, assuming the axes shown in the BT to be a hangover is problematic at best.
Then you mentioned the MoL dane axes and purported that they are from a specific historical battle. This is again, unsupported.
Then you start talking about other sources showing they used lots of axes. This does nothing to prove that they used them more than other people. Saying it doesn't really make it true. You ignore survival bias, the size of Scandinavia and the larger sample size, and a number of other factors.
You also call Scandinavians isolationist after this. Again this isn't true.
As if to disprove that point, you then talk about Scandinavian burials and say that we have "confirmed viking burials" from there. No we don't. During the whole of the viking age, wars played out across Scandinavia with people that never left. Assuming the graves to be viking is simply something we can't do. So you are simply saying something there that isn't true.
"some of the evidence suggests the Scandinavians were less armoured than their opponents"
what evidence?
As for Hardrada and his army, they were caught short, and they were a standing army, not a raiding force. At this point raids had not been conducted on Britain for 50 or so years.
Then you talk about "specialisation of axes"
"axes for throwing" - no evidence for the viking age
"axes for smashing in armour" - no evidence for the viking age
The dane axe was a paradigm of all nations of this "Late viking" period, so talking about it being a Danish/Norse idea is just... flawed.
THANK YOU
This is a very good comment. There seems to be a lot of supposition, regurgitation of outdated arguments, and inappropriate source work and source citation here, unfortunately.
Not to be a dick about it, but for a comment starting out by mentioning the lack of sources; there sure ain't a lot of sources in your following arguments.
That being despite the written format better supporting linking than the visual format.
Please notice that I am not arguing against your arguments, I'm just pointing out that from a layman's perspective, you're both basically saying "trust me, bro".
@@macnof at the end of the day dude, I have a life. This comment took a lot of time to write as it waa. If Matt wants to ask me for sources on the topic then I will provide them - but I'm not going to waste my time.
That is completely your choice, as I assume it was Matt's choice not to bog down his video with countless sources.
Soviet union: we fight for the hammer and sickle!
snow Finnish: allow me to AXE you a question.
Finns were not Vikings or Norse. They got raided by Swedish Vikings though. And raided them as well.
I should have read the comments for this joke first.
I believe you are correct on your main points, the axe is an agressive weapon well suited for.raids, as well as having utility as a tool.
One other factor, however, could be tradition. In the early viking age, resources were limited (that's why they went raiding, after all) and most men would have axes, swords being reserved for chiefs. Even after swords became more available, many might have preferred axes simply because that was their traditional weapon.
Im no historian or anything, so i not sure if im 100% correct here. There is the cultural aspect aswell, i think scandinavians in the neolythic period was part of something call the boat axe culture, and its because they made axes in southern part of sweden looking alot like canoes or "boats", dubble headed axes for the win. and that has carried on since that. I wondered why they wouldent use warhammers as its what the most common diety used, thor, then I came across that mjölnir the hammer might actually have been seen asan axe or half hammer half axe at the viking times.
Ofcourse most of it probably came out of practicality, a axe might not cut down an oak, but cuting a rope, using as a hook, cutting some branshes for a fire, using it as a hammer, means its more versatile on a boat or setting up a camp then any other weapon or tool. There also the thing with durability and size, sure a sword can be carried on the side of a scabbard, though it is alot of blade to take care of, aspecially at sea, also when you are on the boat you are mostly sitting down, and you need to be able to row having a scabbard probably works but its probably in the way a whole lot. where with an axe you can take of the head, put it in your personal chest that you are sitting on while rowing, toss the handle on the floor and if there isent room on the floor toss it in to the sea and get good branch or stick when you get to land again, if one of the axe heads corrodes so badly its unusable you could probably have 3 or 4 other axeheads taking less room then a sword. Also through times havent axes been a common tool and weapon for the common soldiers on boats and ships up untill we starting getting metal ships?
Yeah there would be a religious component to it. Use the same weapon their favored deity uses.
Also, they're just far more dependable. When you go raiding for months on end, perhaps in multiple battles a sword is a lot of work to take care of. Axes are durable and have a much lower failure rate. Not to mention, as Matt said when you do have to fight they're always effective against everyone you may encounter. They just pack enough impact, even on a helmet or mail to drop people. Swords not so much. They can hook shields, they can be used for chores. Space on ships is limited, you carry the most all around useful things you can. That is the axe. The primary weapon, which is the spear already takes up enough space. No use adding to that problem.
Whatever was used in the boat axe culture can hardly be used as a pointer to culture three thousand years later. And indeed, no bronze, iron or steel axe looked anything like the stone axes from the boat axe culture.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Only the Ulfberht, Ingelrii swords were extremely hard to break. Most swords were not of very fine quality, and could certainly be broken. Axes, on the other hand, are only really vulnerable along the wooden shafts - the heads being quite solid.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Swords of that era were more brittle than later swords, not less. There's a reason why they had to pattern weld their blades, and it is extremely rare that this was for purely decorative purposes. _Today_ it is chiefly for decorative purposes, because modern smiths have access to excellent steel, and there simply is no need for pattern welding. So _of course_ modern replicas are going to be excellent. But we know from surviving examples that most were of mediocre quality at best. It's not just the process that makes the blade, but the quality of the ore as well. And there were far more inclusions in ore of that time than the ore you have today. You cannot get ore of Viking age quality today, unless you start out from scratch and use their methods. And so far, we haven't been able to make steel with Viking age methods which has been of the same quality (the Norse had the benefit of lifetimes of experience - experimental archaeology not so much).
The best swords, the Ulfberhts and Ingelriis, weren't exactly rare - but none of them were made in Scandinavia, and their providence is actually a mystery - because these were head and shoulders above all other swords at the time. And also because most Ulfberhts have been found in Norway, where we know they were not made. The steel was very pure in these blades - unlike the vast majority of other swords found, which ranged from garbage to ok.
MMA "ground and pound". Slide your hand up and you have a slashing smashing terminating weapon. Yell SCREAM charge & block their 1st blow. Strike & slam into them. Kill them. If someone else wounds you, kill them. Then kill 2 more. Vikings prefer axes.
I have a feeling, just a guess really, that if one needs to cut a large rigging rope you might just use an axe or a large knife..... maybe like a Seax.
(Edit) I have to also wonder if we have any differences in the axes used from the earlier to later periods during the Viking eras. The Great Axe reminds me alot of Fireman's axes used to break down doors and such that could easily evolve into a battlefield weapon by slimming down once they transition from smaller bands into greater ones and finally into armies. If you're no longer going after monasteries but kingdoms tactics and equipment probably needs to evolve somewhat.
Not to mention boarding,
Sea-faring is the distinguishing characteristic of vikings. The axe being more useful aboard a ship is an excellent point.
I once had a workman take out a front door lock, enlarge the cavity and put in a new lock, all with the deft use of a small axe. The Norse may have been shipwrecked fairly frequently. The axes would enable them to do repairs and cut new timber wherever they found themselves. They would also be useful in setting up the temporary camps they would need when invading somewhere for more than a few days. The OED suggests that the word viking came from Old English _wíc_ - meaning a temporary encampment.
I believe they went a-viking in winter when they were not farming. Perhaps they also had to remove ice from the rigging sometimes.
Skallagrim as entire videos on Vikings. And a seax is not a particularly large knife unless we look at its bigger version, the langseax. And an ax is good at cutting rope, but this is freehanging rope, so a sword would be better (and these swords can be BIG, 35 inches in blade length and up to 4 pounds)
@@pattheplanter
Well said. Agreed.
I have bunches of weapons in my kit ranging from micro knives through every category of blades and firearms all the way up to 1000yd. heavy hitters. But because I love the options versatility brings, and because I am a lifelong tradesman, I also incorporated certain construction tools into my gear.
And one of my favorite tools in inventory are my twin set of (because why not carry two?) Estwing hammer hatchets. Got them at Home Depot for about $40 each. They are the old school camping axe style with the compressed leather washer handle on a stainless integrated spine and head. You can beat the living tar out of them with zero concern.
The real beauty is in the form, fit, and finish though. They have amazing balance, can easily be wielded two handed, in reverse or hammer grip. But the subtle chamfering or beveling on all the edges means your hand never feels hot spots no matter how much you use it, or which way you hold it. Plus they just look good. Sorta an old school retro vibe. But man, are they useful.
I have to believe, if Vikings had a Depot back in those days, these axes would have been a very popular seller, lol. Sorta of the Nordic equivalent to a Glock 19, everybody has one as a sidearm because they generally just work when you need them to. Except, with far superior ergonomics. ;- )
For me, there are very few items more useful in your kit than a well proportioned, ideally weighted piece of solid steel purposefully designed to cut, rip, tear, and ultimately sever when you need it. Ten thousand years of refinement hasn't really improved substantially on the basic design. That fact in and of itself is reason to own, use, and train with one.
As I understand it, swords historically have been quite expensive and required a great deal of specialized technique (to make a good sword that would hold an edge and not easily break or chip.) So swords almost universally throughout history have been the “nobleman’s” weapon. A badge of rank, a tool for only one purpose (fighting) and not terribly practical.
Spears are dirt cheap, stab better than a sword, and fend off cavalry well.
Axes, every man probably has anyway because in the northern forests an axe is an everyday necessity. And they’re not bad as fighting weapons.
I like that you're approaching this question in the CONTEXT of broader military tactics instead of just single combat, as I think the HEMA community can be kinda blind to the big picture sometime. And I think you have a great point that wealth was not a problem for Scandinavia at the time, but in the same discussion you mention that armor was quite rare, and it may be for strategic mobility reasons, but it may also be an indication of low resources. Even if merchants were willing to trade goods with the Norse, they may have had rules against selling weapons or mass supplying weapons. (And I remember reading that Norse hack-silver was not well liked by non Norse merchants, dunno how you'd prove that) I also remember reading that the Norse didn't really have iron mines back then, most of their metal came from bog iron, so even though Scandinavia is quite metal rich, they may not have had access to the full depth of mineral resources. However, I have no idea if the bog iron is true, I'd be very interested to know more about where medieval and migration era folks got their iron.
"....rules against selling"? In the context of the age these were most likely nonexistent and would not have been effective, as prohibition in the face of profit is difficult in our highly regulated governments now let alone then. Agree with your resources statement, which would have made the lower status raiders, soldiers, or crew members less likely to have multiple iron/ steel weapons as they would have been more expensive or the result of successful campaigns.
Current history believes Iron was originally discovered as meteoric Iron by the Hittites of Ancient Egypt who later developed a way to smelt it (talking several 000's of year BC - they kept it pretty secret for as long as they could. Ancient China was next in about 1000 BC and the they later worked out how to properly make cast iron, eventually creating a blast furnace in maybe 1st Century BC. Iron was able to be heated, worked and purified for a long time. This Iron would have found it's way to Europe along with various ways to work it in increasing amounts. The Vikings were well known traders and explorers prior to large scale raiding. Interestingly Sweden was the first country in Europe to use a blast furnace in 1100AD shortly after the end of the Viking age :(
You raised a good point about broader CONTEXT as even the very very best Irons (heck even early steel) would have rust rapidly in any marine environment with out significant protection and maintenance... A sword would be useless during a long sea voyage and chain mail... well... it could seize up while you are wearing it and it's really heavy... on a boat... Where as an axe is much easier to maintain and protect, not to mention more useful on a boat. There is a reason boats were made of wood for a very very long time and their metal fittings mostly brass or similar metals... even after they where first powered by steel steam engines they had wooden hulls... It was almost as if iron and steel didn't like water, especially the ocean...
@@pxrays547 I'm not going to argue that people didn't sell weapons to the Norse. I'm sure some people did. But just as a thought, what if it isn't just the government (king/duke/count...) telling you don't sell swords with the Norse or else. What if it is also the Church telling you don't sell swords to the heathen Norse on pain of excommunication. Does that change the equation a bit?
Try building a boat with a sword... We use axes for everything.
😂
Worth mentioning is that the graves often have a sword and one or more axes. So even a wealthy person with a sword had an axe. Spear primary weapon, axe secondary weapon and sword last resort weapon?
Possibly swords were viewed as prestigious and were a way to display wealth and status. I’m not an expert on combat but what’s the point of having three “primary weapons”?
@@De_Futura That they prefer the axe, but if they lose it they have the sword that is easy to carry and fast to draw.
@@De_Futura 2 to throw and run interference with and one to use in the clinch.
Any village blacksmith could make an axe, a knife, a spear tip (basically a knife) or arrowheads. Not to many of them could make a decent sword. That's ore of a specialized art, like making helmets.
The information and analysis on weapons and armour is great, but more I'm just impressed by how long and flowing and natural sounding a talk you put into a single take. most people, and I've been to a shoot from a fellow historical youtuber you know well, might take 5 hours of takes to get 20 mins of edited 'discussion' footage.
Its an undrerated skill that you just bang this out in mostly one take without stopping.
Norwegian here with a nordic perspective: An axe has more uses then just killing people, as opposed to a sword. I think this is the real reason axes were a mainstay. It would be useful pretty much every day of your life. One investment that servers as both a primary weapon and a tool.
Now if you are rich you don't need to use an axe every day, you got people to do that for you. So you get a sword. Also consider the norse were a continuation of the nordic ca. 2800-2300 BC Battleaxe culture, there might be a cultural, traditional aspect there.
The vikings raided by sea. I wonder if the more prevalent use of the axe was because they found axes useful on board ships, and in ship to ship fighting. The boarding axe was certainly used in western navies during the age of sail.
I think the Vikings (which were just the raiding Skandinavians, not all of them) started out with using axes to utilize as weapons on their raids, since they are more violent than knives, and then they just stuck with axes as a primary weapon, after they saw how well they served them. Maybe they also liked to strike fear into their oponents, and the axe had probably a striking effect upon seeing it being weilded in devastating ways; it probably also looked wild, and the christians were kind of scared of the wild I think. Their oponent would probably also not quite know how to deal with axe attacks as well as with what they already knew.
Primarily a tool, then developing into a refined weapon.
But who knows 🙃
...it is easy to answer why - axes are cheap, easy to use (by an untrained person) and relatively effectiv... The classic "Viking raid" was performed often by men of low social status. "Going Viking" was more a "privat" event, it has nothing to do with the "official" military campaigns of the Skandinavian kings an princes...
"Going viking" is considered a raid today due to who wrote about it (their victims). Most norse sources calls it straight up war. Harald Hardråde "went viking" when he went to Englang to support some pretender to the English throne agaisnt Harold Godwinson. That is obviously a completely regular war, and he conducted warfare in a fairly regular way.
For some reason I misread "Viking raid" as "Vereenigde raid" 😂😂😂
@@Taeerom Yes, but not all Viking raids were part of war. Many were just private plunderers.
Axes require some training and practice as well. An axe is considered a tools that is dangerous to the unskilled user. However people might have practice when they have to chop wood for heating and cooking. The aspect of the kind of fighting they were intend for is valid too IMHO.
I have quite a bit of practice and precission with an axe. I might be able to use one for some nice sunday afternoon pillaging. My skills with a swords may not allow that. Using one might lead to a trip to the ER. Why? Lots of practice chopping wood with an axe - no real practice handling a sword.
Axes don't require less skill than swords, you don't need to know fencing to be able to kill someone with a sword.
Not only the Scandinavian style of warfare. Good luck building, repairing or maintaining a Long Boat(your ride home) without an axe. Simply put, it really didn't matter who they were, they would have had an axe, been familiar with the axe, was at least minimally skilled in the use of an axe & understood the strengths & weakness of an axe not only as a day to day tool, but as a weapon as well.
You'd have to consider the cultural heritage as well. If we're looking at the viking era you find stuff from all over the world. If we're looking at the 5th and 6th century then selection of gravegoods are much more local and the sword is a more exclusive item (with the axe, but primarily spear- and arrowheads being the most common finds). Axes are relatively common in Vendel period graves.
That said, the "axe as a raiders weapon" does have merit. If you're attacking as a raider you're far more likely to outnumber the enemies you're fighting (because if it's the other way around you want to use the fact that you're not weighed down with several kilos of armor to gtfo). And they might have an advantage in terms of armor, so you want to overwhelm them quickly. And here the axe has the advantage that it both hits harder and you can hook the enemy shield. So while an armored swordsman might have a chance against multiple unarmored enemy swordsmen (because they'll have a problem getting around your shield or making serious wounds while you can cripple enemies with even lighter blows) the same is probably not true of multiple enemy axemen because they have to tools to quickly overwhelm a swordsman, even if the swordsman has an advantageous position (like in a doorway).
A singel axe men killed half an army at stamford bridge..
Axe wins
Most here does see the axe only as weapons... but in my oppinion the axe was more a multitool for seaborn Viking raids.
If you look of their ships, they were very compact. Only one deck... below deck was storageroom for food, water and loot. The deck was living area. Those ships were small for the amount of sailors on it. So not much space as in ships of other nations at that time... so you have to choose what to load in the ship (more weapons = less food/loot). Maybe also the reason why the ships are pictured with the shields outside the ship.
Imagine now that you do ship raids and raid landings... in that process those ships may get damaged... but you also want to drive home with them. So they need to be repaired sometimes far from home.
So my thought is, that they not only used the axes as weapons, but also as tools for chopping trees and work on wood (for example as a slicer) to repair/replace planks, masts, rudder and so on when needed... you can't do it with a sword.
So I would think for Vikings on their seaborn raids the weapon of choice was an axe, a knive and a shield (bows and spears can be fast made or looted on destination, if needed)... while on homeland they used everything they had (spears, swords, axes, bows, forks... whatever).
omg why WOULDN'T they use an axe?
They're light, fast, sturdy, devastating, easy to carry and maintain, and double as a really useful tool.
Axes can be used for things other than killing. Axes require much less training to use compared to swords. Axes require less technical ability to make. Maybe not even made by a trained smith. Axes can be very intimidating to the enemy. Imagine hundreds of blood thirsty raiders armed with axes coming at you.
Also You cannot Axe a Question with a Sword, though the latter has Deep Penetration that Matt prefers!
'The French were well known for using throwing axes.' But what was their aim like? If you throw an axe at a Viking, you've got one less axe, and he's got one more.. 😂
Axes were the hand to hand combat weapon of the rookie vikings, those who neither had the money to get one, nor had the experience to get a sword from a battle. Plus, these things were also tools-used on the farm.
And I know, while the first raids pretty much were done out of desperation, what followed in hundreds of years, was mainly greed based. But it is also easy to forget, that many of those that went viking, did so as traders, and did no one harm. It does not excuse those that went in violent Viking. But it broadens the pictures. There is even evidence that Norsemen/Vikings traded along the Silk Road, and even into Africa in later years.
Scandinavians is the name of the people who used the word viking to describe going raiding. So as you said the axe would be favored for fast attacks on unsuspecting people. After all they didn't go VIKING to start a war, they went VIKING to get booty, and things they could later sell like slaves. So the NORSEMEN were the people, and event was to go VIKING.
Who needs mail when you have a shirt made of moose rawhide?
Also: Housecarl is derived from the scandinavian word huskarl. Hus = house. Karl = man.
Moose skin/pels are rare and ekspansive, and easy poked with arrows, and the vikings prefered to trade in reindeer, caribu, Moose is for food, elk skin for the bed and sheep to keep warm
Mail is even better then any rawhide or leather.
@@SuperFunkmachine a shield is cheaper and if you wore mail, you atoumatic chop for the neck or ancle
And there is tall tales that a Brown bear was used as a pet
My woodshop teacher actually had some good points about this. He used to plane wood by hand with a Dane axe. Not cutting down trees with it, but shaping the wood and curving it. He didn't make a full longship, but his theory was that it could be done, since he'd made a little rowboat as a personal project using nothing but two axes (and nails and sealant).
Then he'd be wrong. A boatbuilder or ship builder have a pethora of axes (my teacher had 14 different) for different jobs. And he worked with circle and chainsaws to do the rough work. There are many different axes for different jobs. The dane axe is just one other specialization for another job. Having 15 different axes is not going to break the bank compared to having 14.
An axe can 1. Be used as a hand weapon. 2. Can be used as a tool. 3. Is better for chopping through doors. 4. Can be modified with a spike or an opposite blade to make it even more versatile and dangerous. 5. An axe can be thrown, and therefore used as a short distance ranged weapon. This makes an axe a more versatile weapon than just a sword alone.
Do you think their naval warfare played a part in them choosing axes over swords? A cutlass is an axe-sword after all.
My two cents: for sure the type of activity (vikings) was a major reason for choosing axes and big knives as weapons: intruding and breaching in houses monastery deposits and churches as you said, plus the fight that will occur mostly in close quarters and ambients with few room to manoeuvre your weapon. Plus, I think also the comfort to wear and easiness of use on boat of such short weapons and lastly, weather and environment (snow, humidity and salty water and air) and effect on equipment, including the burden of maintaining it in good condition.
I agree, although also have an expanding point to add.
Versatility. Weapons are a tool, used to achieve (or more effectively or efficiently achieve) a certain result and to resolve certain concerns.
Armor, by comparison, would shut down a sword more than an axe; whereas a sword relies much more on the bite of the blade, the axe strikes with far more energy, meaning that, even if not as great as a dedicated bludgeoning weapon, would still ultimately _suffice_ against anyone who happened to be armored during their raids. Similarly, I imagine the hooking mechanics would be very useful at overcoming shields that they encountered in a quick manner and against defenses that might have been more common for them to encounter (if the attack was sufficiently fast, they may not have or have had time to don maille, but may have been able to pick up a shield or similar barrier device).
Then axes are also better at doubling up as multitools. While they are not especially good woodcutting axes, some types are adequate. This means carrying less tools (and containers or suspension systems for tools) and less weight, which is a major factor in mobility. While I think they would not have been adequate for any sort of serious construction as other comments suggest, you can do some level of chopping firewood, light-moderate hammering, and so on.
So axes may have better suited the raid style of combat (less time spent fencing with comparatively defensive swords, fewer concerns about being shut down by armor, having some allies hook open a shieldwall to rush down a small and ill-prepared force) while also adequately fulfilling multiple needs and minimizing impediments to their mobility. Perhaps those of higher rank, who essentially taxed the looting done by the others, might focus on commanding and thus picked their weapons more for self-defense, therefore having a greater inclination towards swords and thereby playing a role in their supposed prestige, just as with later leading military personnel using a sword and pistol rather than a rifle and bayonet.
Also, please consider a video on medieval bombs and hand grenades!
All of what you say is mentioned in this video.
Axe over sword for Scandinavian pirates:---
1 - Better for ship repair. 4 - Better for smash and run - Breaking in doors.
2 - Cheap. Easily replaceable. 5 - More easily protected from rust around salt water.
3 - Can be re hafted quickly. 6 - Familiarity from lifelong use.
"We're talking about Francia which is now France."
*Angry Aachen noises* The heartlands of Francia spread further east than modern day France. And Charlemagne's preferred city was the aforementioned Aachen. Francia gave birth to both France and the Holy Roman Empire/Later Germany.
In hungary we still call France 'Franciaország' (ország stands for country). So this difference doesn't really makes sense in my languages.
@@SUB0SCORION Francia is not France. Compare the maps. Francia included modern day France.
You also have a Franconia in Germany.
@@QuantumHistorian he could just say "which is now France and Germany". Or "which encompassed modern day france".
And lame joke is lame. Charles the Great was as much Charlemagne as he was Karl der Große.
The term Viking came from a term that literally means to go exploring for new land for farming and that’s y most used axes in my opinion which is probably wrong but I’m curious
Its possible that its a 'fashion' thing, its what people 'do' even when they had access to other weapons etc, whether axes started as a practical or economic thing, they became a cultural thing. 'We' use axes because our dad's did (and they might be quite handy too).
In this case I doubt it because swords were always higher status that axes in Scandinavia.
Norway was the last place the axe was a regulation weapon for the army. Fashion played a part in the axes popularity in the Norwegian military all the way up to the 18th century (iirc, might be 17th). It is no surprise if that tradition was present in the norse period as well.
On the other hand, in roman iron age (0-300) in Scandinavia, fighting axes was not common at all. Soldiers were quite uniformly equipped with lance, throwing spear, shield and either a fighting knife or spatha (roman blade, germanic fittings). The lances even follows a fashion cycle of a generation, meaning that there were some kind of mass production going on. All the axes are likely tools, even those found in military contexts look more like tools than weapons. The tradition of using axes was not present then, it must have been adopted later.
@@Taeerom they werent also common as weapons in the celtic iron age - atleast not in denmark. Iwe read some ppl trying to connect the emergence of the axe in warfare with the upheval caused by the 6th century disasters such as the Justinian plague and the climate chatastrophe followed by that volcano eruption.
Axes are multi-purpose. When you're not on a plundering trip to England, you can chop down trees and build furniture.
Could another reason be that the Norse traveled by water? I feel like a sword is an expensive thing to lose to rust or in raiding. I feel an axe wouldn’t rust as bad. And I feel that an axe isn’t as big of a deal to lose in raiding.
How about axes for building those longboats in the first place.
@@SaulKopfenjager Building axes tend to be of the rather large and unwieldy variety, AFAIK. If you're working on a dedicated building task, you get dedicated tools. However, fighting axes are still useful for lighter work where convenience is much more important than efficiency.
Axes are easier to maintain than swords, and lose less efficiency if they get blunt, since they still have their power. I think axes were just overall more convenient and effective for Vikings than swords. There's no single answer, but several that lead to the same conclusion.
Simple to make the head, simple to create a haft, simple to repair, useful as a tool, cheap to outfit an army, and good to catch swords and cutting and percussive damage against metal armor.
As always, a very interesting and thought-provoking video Matt .. my 2 cents' worth would be that yes, I think you're mostly right but I'd argue also on training - growing up in this period, almost everyone would know how to use an axe from boyhood, no need for specialised extra training with a sword; a lot of the "foot soldiers" would be poorer, younger people looking to make a name for themselves and get loot to bring back home, would they grow up with a sword in their hand? Probably not... ; Another thought I had was that whilst a sword is a great sidearm, it's not easy to carry more than one, whereas axes? One could quite easily carry 3 or 4 of them (especially smaller, lighter throwing axes, but also tomahawk sized ones or even slightly bigger/heavier ones), on a belt; Smithing - whilst there certainly were blacksmiths capable of making a sword blade, I'd argue that it was much easier and more smiths were capable of forging axe heads to a high standard, so axes made to order for a person's tastes/usage would perhaps be easier to find than a sword made for them? Even though swords, spears etc could be brought back as loot, what are the chances that it's going to be EXACTLY what you want as a weapon, if it's not confiscated by the leader/better known warriors who'd probably take all the best quality items for themselves...
I do totally agree that the offensive weapon set of axe and shield is a great combination for raiders - and it's one we see elsewhere, used by peoples who prize speed, stealth and sudden shock tactics above all else.
Keep up the good work, my friend, great to see you looking so well.
Take care and stay safe!
I would imagine that they had an edge in that they were the ones to train with axes most and most else did not so they had weaknesses they could exploit in others in the unpreparedness with dealing with axes in combat. Not as extreme as the horse archery the mongolians surprised the rest of the world with in combat but usually newly evolved weaponry or niche weaponry people aren't used to dealing with gives them an edge against opponents strategically or tactically.
One-handed axes hold the position as replacement for swords for people who couldn't afford them in Medieval europe. High and late medieval scandinavian equipment laws for example usually give the people a choice between owning a sword or an axe, and I figure this is how it was seen back in the early medieval period too. You can see this elsewhere in europe too, such as the Bridport Roll from 1451 where the majority of the people show up with swords but some show up with one-handed axes instead. But it also seems clear that if one can afford a sword, that is the more popular pick. The dynamic of who could afford swords changes, so while it's low in the early medieval period they gradually get cheaper to the point that by the late middle ages pretty much all soldiers had swords.
There's of course the horseman's axes though, which are as the name implies popular on horseback. They're alternatives to maces and hammers (which are also popular cav weapons). Neither of these are worn instead of swords but are worn in addition to the swords and lances also carried.
Two-handed axes are another matter, and they alongside the spear are a staple of medieval european weaponry (probably popularised in the rest of Europe by the danes, but I am not sure on that). They're a popular pick for soldiers, but especially knights, as an alternative to using spears or glaives. They evolve into various forms of great axes, halberds (which are mainly cheaper infantry weapons) and pollaxes (which are mainly knightly weapons, but still used by infantrymen too).
The raw power of the Dane axes can take most armor and shields apart.
If you take a hit to your helmet, even it it does not go through.
It is still like having a hammer blow to the head, and will knock you out
An eyewitness account of the Vikings by Ibn Fadlan, early 10th century:
"I saw the Rūs, who had come for trade and had camped by the river Itil. I have never seen bodies more perfect than theirs. They were like palm trees. They are fair and ruddy. They wear neither coats [qurtāq] nor caftans, but a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves one hand free. Each of them carries an axe, a sword and a knife and is never parted from any of the arms we have mentioned. Their swords are broad bladed and grooved like the Frankish ones. From the tips of his toes to his neck, each man is tattooed in dark green with designs, and so forth." Fadlan, Ibn. Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness (Penguin Classics) . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
Thanks for reminding this eye witness detail.
One aspect not mentionned is naval warfare. Almost all major Nnorse vs Norse engagements in the viking age were naval battles. Axes are great in that context. In the mediterrenean the Genoese would also use axes.
Dane here. The preference for axes probably comes from a few things: 1) climate, 2) familiarity, 3) utilitarian tool, 4) easy repair, 5) preexisting mastery of wood working, 6) saving on metal and 7) using our body size to our advantage (axes use leverage for damage ~ we're a head taller than other Europeans, then as now). Scandinavian culture tends to be strongly utilitarian in nature - even today we are known for minimalistic and practical design, whether Danish Design or IKEA. That preference comes from living in an Alaska-like environment where carrying around highly specialized tools is a luxury you can rarely afford, because you need tools you can use in most or all situations - or you will die up here. Anybody and everybody in Scandinavia would have known how to swing an axe. You can even use an axe as a throwing weapon for hunting.
This preference for utility is particularly expressed by Norse items frequently being highly decorated - but still always on a tool with practical use. Purely ornamental items in Norse culture are rare, tend to be smaller and out-of-the-way. Even in Roman times up to 800 yrs before, only innovations of practical use would cross the Rhine into the North: steel making, advanced wool weaving techniques, beer brewing - but no use for poetry, perfume or wafty silks.
The other factor could be saving on metal (a precious material) along with an already existing preference for working in wood: timber is abundant in Scandinavia, it's (obviously) the best material for ships in a landscape that relies heavily on sailing - AND - it is a natural insulator as well in a cold climate (often overlooked abroad). Scandinavians have primarily built houses in wood for that very reason until modern times, still do in Norway, northern Sweden, Finland, Iceland and the Faroes. You can hold an axe-handle in freezing temperatures or a gale when crossing the North Sea, but even resting the front of your hand on a metal crossguard would be uncomfortable - or cause outright frostbite, if cold enough. Also, wood does not corrode with the amount of sailing the Norse did.
So, I think you're right about axes being a more offensive weapon for the purposes of raiding, especially in combination with our large body size - but axes were simply also more abundant as tools in everyday life, they are better suited for our domestic climate and everybody knew how to use them.
An axe and a large knife, which is exactly what the Norse favored, is basically a highly versatile survival kit - indeed, it's the very same survival kit that was favored by the fur trappers and settlers of North America as recently as the 1800s, for precisely the same reasons: versatility and ease of maintenance.
And that is what the Norse were: explorers and settlers - far more often than raiders.
EDIT: I forgot to add, that axes are in a sense also more "democractic" if you want to arm your general population - that is, as Schola Gladiatoria also points out, axe heads take much less skill and are far easier to produce locally ~ whereas swords take advanced forges and skilled smiths to produce, in addition to the higher skill threshold to learn how to use. For highly egalitarian-even-democratic Scandinavian culture (things, elected chieftains, etc.), this is a plus because everyone can easily arm themselves - whereas for strongly hierarchical Anglo-Saxon culture this is a real challenge, because an armed peasantry could pose a threat to the nobility, who were keeping the swords for themselves. In that sense, swords also offer a form of social control, that axes actively counteract. Hence, the Scandinavian preference for axes may even be an expression of the fundamentally different social structure governing each society.
I'd like to add that the typical frontier knife in the US was double edged. One edge was kept very sharp, the other was kept much ... rougher? Not as sharp, more for rough shaping.
I forgot to add, that axes are in a sense also more "democractic" if you want to arm your general population - that is, as Schola Gladiatoria also points out, axe heads take much less skill and are far easier to produce locally ~ whereas swords take advanced forges and skilled smiths to produce, in addition to the higher skill threshold to learn how to use. For highly egalitarian-even-democratic Scandinavian culture (things, elected chieftains, etc.), this is a plus because everyone can easily arm themselves - whereas for strongly hierarchical Anglo-Saxon culture this is a real challenge, because an armed peasantry could pose a threat to the nobility, who were keeping the swords for themselves. In that sense, swords also offer a form of social control, that axes actively counteract. Hence, the Scandinavian preference for axes may even be an expression of the fundamentally different social structure governing each society.