Are Axes Easier To Use Than Swords?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- Lots of people describe weapons like axes, maces or hammers as 'easier to use' than swords. But is that correct? What does that even mean?
More videos on Patreon: / scholagladiatoria
Rapier-using duelists' most commonly used last words: "But halberds don't count as an axe!"
Made my day, well done XD
But what about pollaxes then? Hehe
Halberds are just axes on crack.
@@WearyFeline More like spears with more toys mounted. They're not poleaxes. Halberd attacks are mostly thrusting and backwards raking.
Axe Is a general term even the kitchen meat clever is considered an axe and yes even halberds are because they have axe heads with a long spear like point on the top if they didn't have an axe head they simply would be considered spears the axe head is the only thing that sets the 2 apart
Axes are also often associated with the fantasy barbarian type which tends to just go for massive overpowering blows and implication of totally unskilled brute which is probably part of where the stereotype comes from.
Which he actually confirmed in that, if an axe head hits it's more likely to deal a grievous wound overall.
I pity the man opposing an angry huscarl
In the Conan the Barbarian stories, Conan is depicted as anything but an unskilled unthinking brute. He is extremely skilled with all weapons, including the sword, the axe, and the bow.
@@robertromero8692 Conan is the creator of the archetype, but it "evolved' from there. That unskilled brute thing is mostly from videogames, or in D&D, if you compare the Barbarian with the Fighter, the barbarian is less skilled, but more tough and ferocious.
The stereotype is from the Dane Axe, a two-handed axe (poleaxe). Dane Axes were used by Vikings & Rus, but were also adopted by the Anglo-Saxons & Normans. Another variant is the Sparth (or Sparr Axe in Ireland) with a broader balde. It evolved into the Bardiche, the Voulge and so on. A very good weapon that is surprisingly light for its length.
The Dane Axe was quite successful against shields (both the center boss shields of the Vikings/Normans & the strapped kite shields of Eastern Romans etc.
It became synonymous with the famous Varangian Guard of the Eastern Roman Empire & Eastern Roman Kingdom, elite Viking (mostly)/Rus/Norman elite bodyguards of the Eastern Roman Emperors. They were loyal to the emperors (who paid them) and the most successful carved their stories into runestones. The most known was Harald Hardrada, who became King of Norway, had claim to the throne of Denmark and tried to invade England but he lost to the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson. For the record, Godwinson lost a few days later to the Norman Duke William I the Conqueror. History could have been different if Hardrada won or attacked after William spent his forces against Godwinson.
Hey Matt! Your videos are getting even stronger lately, this is some of your finest work explaining your theories on weapons. Keep it up!
True. These new ones are right on the sweet spot.
Sounds like a good point on the “training” side of things. Lots of “sword masters” in pop culture and not many axe masters. Could add to the preconception.
Many sword manuals were adjusted to duels and self-defense, while the axe was primarily a war weapon.
… I suspect, on no data, that Joe Peasant had muscle skills already built up from daily use of the axe as a tool since he was a child, knew how to swing it for maximum impact and recover from the strike. Swords... not so much.
Yeah, so back when everyone that wasn't rich would probably had to chop wood, the idea that axe are easier would hold true.
My thoughts exactly. I think up until modern times most people would have been pretty good with an axe because they would have used it every day to cut wood for a fire. Even in summer you have to cook, so you need fire every day of the year. How often would the average person held or even seen a sword? A few times in their life? Maybe never?
@@PJDAltamirus0425 I dunno, a wood axe is so different from a fighting axe, I'm not sure it would help much beyond general fitness. And they might not have used a sword, but they'd have used a knife.
@@simontmn A log splitting and tree chopping axe would be allot different from a fighting axe but hatchet and a fighting axe wouldn't be that different. A knife and sword would be used allot differently because of weight and length difference.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 You may be right, I use a 2h wood axe a lot but I've not used a hatchet enough to get a good feel for it (used to own one but left it with my ex). The two are certainly very different though surely even the utility hatchet must be much thicker than a combat axe?
Matt Easton drinking game: Whenever he says context, have a shot. Whenever he makes sexual innuendos, have a double.
Remember when he asked us to google pegging videos? Bless this man.
@@DragonTigerBoss lol I missed that one!
If we did that, half his viewers would die of alcohol poisoning, lol.
@@DragonTigerBoss what
@@EnclaveTrooper1
Matt Easton meant tent pegging. But Captain Context, Master of Innuendo shortened it to just "pegging."
I appreciate the point on axes. I'd argue though that a one handed mace is possibly the most beginner friendly........no edge alignment lol, just a heavy club.
FuzzyBrains555 right
It's one of the better beginner weapons, but those with a smaller frame may find the required body mechanics a bit difficult (though, admittedly they may have a similar problem getting power into a sword).
There is a really simple beginner weapon that people of almost any frame can handle, that requires no edge alignment, and can easily generate a lot of power, though: the spear (not super portable though, unfortunately)
And maces are cool.
Axes and maces are more tiring to use than swords. And assuming it's a street fight (which most HEMA is simulating), a sword with bad edge alignment will still do more damage than a mace or club. I think a sword is easily the best one-handed weapon for a beginner.
@Caramel Johnson No I don't agree with quarterstaff. Neither the attacks nor the guard positions and defences are intuitive. Spear is *far* easier. Yes the same is true of defending but generally distance and repeated poking is all the defence you need. (P.S. You could use a quarterstaff like a spear but it's going to be a short and overweight and blunt spear so it's not going to be very good.)
Before video: Is it *CONTEXT?*
After video: *I WAS RIGHT!!!*
ONCE AGAIN THE DAY IS SAVED THANKS TO CAPTAIN CONTEXT
He needs a promotion to Major Context
@@chadfalardeau9162 I can see him becoming Field Marshal Context in the next couple of years
But I mean, what else are you supposed to be saying if that's just how it is
That's cheating though because it's always CONTEXT.
"you can swing any object you like at someone else... DON'T DO IT!!"
I litterally talked about this topic with a newbie in my swordfight group today by the mourning. But I'm in Brazil and had no idea Matt Easton would have done a video on the exact same topic in the same day I luckly talked about this.
Just got amazed by the coincidence and shared this video with the boy.
Cheears from Bazil, Matt. Loved your video as always.
Qual é seu grupo de HEMA, Luiz?
Hi Matt,
Total different subject from your video but could you discuss cavalry sometime with use of your sources? I mean from an individuals perspective, how much does riding on a 1000 pound flesh and bone battering ram changes combat (like how you mentioned armour changes context).
Great suggestion!
That is something I really want to know. Especially how armor changes, guess it is thicher in other places compared to your average foot knight.
Swords at best were sidearms. The spears (especially) & polearms were the kings of the battlefield. While spears with lengths of 7 meters were rare (ex sarissa), spears reached from to 2-3 meters to 5 meters ((Eastern Roman short kontarion was 2,4 meters while the long kontarion was 4-5 meters). A common Middle Age tactic was to use a strapped kite shield and to hold the spear 2-handed.
Thus cavalry went into 1.light cavalry (dedicated archers or multirole), 2.medium cavalry (multirole or dedicated chargers), heavy cavalry (dedicated break-through or even multirole doubling down as horse archers) the Parthians were masters at this. The Parthian Shot was very famous back at the day, they shot arrows on horseback while retreating. No stirrup had yet been invented, and they did it with leg pressure only. Later the Parthian Shot symbolized a retort, a barbed insult.
Crassus & the Battle of Carrhae is the prime example of a non-horse army losing to a horse army - constant arrow rain and lastly a cataphract attack finishing the battle).
Horses charging make the ground shake akin to an arthquake, it is excellent for shock tacticts along with the attack momentum. Also the sight of horses charging you while the earth is shaking is frightful indeed. ButBut horses dont naturally enter through a dense group of people. Thus you need excellent horse training, excellent soldier training, excelent armour, excellent discipline & excellent morale. If you lack in these areas your horse attack will fail, especially if you are against against veteran spearmen.
See the French-English war, when the French cavalry caught the English out of position (before they camped in very defensive positions & positioned their stakes) they were massacred. The English used cavalry sparingly, mostly of their knights fought dismounted while their longbowmen shot arrows, protected by their stakes (& mallets).
As for a good example ofthe success of charging against soldiers, see the battles of 17th-18th century. Soldiers usually bayonet charged, yet most of the time the loser fled before actual bayonet fighting insued. Horse charging was used for the initial stages of the fight
The pinnacle of the Early Medieval Ages was no doubt the Eastern Roman & Sassanid Persian Cataphractoi/Clibanarii (Cataphracts). Their armor (klivanion, a form of lamellar mail) provided near excellent protection. Do note the Eastern Roman lamellar plates were fixed to a backing and not to each adjacent plate providing better protection than most lamellar (much more expensive though). For the record Lamellar is superior against arrows than the standard Western knight of that era (10-12th century) & composite short bows were much more prevalent in the dry climates of Eastern Europe, Minor Asia & Asian Steppes.
The horse was also similarly equipped, and although it was slower it was considered an excellent tradeoff (lose mobility & speed for a unpararelled "troop-breaking" power).
As for their weapons, again it is quite interesting to take a closer look at the Eastern Roman Cataphracts for they employed various weapons in the same regiment & each cataphract even had many secondary weapons.The shorter Kontarion (used overarm rather than couched) was mainly used by the front troops. A preferred weapon of choice was the mace (vardoukion & matzouka), many had 2 spare maces and many had also 2 spare swords , the (straight) paramerion & the (curved) spathion. The mace is an excellent weapon for cavalrymen vs armor/helmets as you can align it easily as opposed to a hammer for instance. Usually the weapons on the side of the regiment carried swords or spears, while the front had spears or maces. Also in the center, there wear lighter cataphracts (also with armored horses, usually lighter armored) that wielded short composite bows. Lastly Cataphracts used throwing maces in preparation for a charge!
Imagine the scenario of armored cavalrymen charging you with maces/spear and their friends from behind the 2nd line throw smaller maces at you. The thrown maces only need to hit your shield and suddenly your shield-arm is going numb from all the heavy objects thrown at you while the front line is about to hit you. Not an ideal situation for sure.
Thus a Cataphract regiment was a multi-threat combination that could perform various roles & not just used for breaking through.
A video on the targe and dirk combination of the Scots could be cool.
Yup. Seconded.
Topic for a video: What is the function of a Ricasso? Why and when was it invented? Does it make a blade stronger or weaker? The transition from a ricasso and the sharp blade is a stress point? And so on...
Its probably just so you can rest your finger in front of the crossgaurd without accidentally slicing it
Another possible reason for the Ricasso is that it saves having to sharpen the whole blade. Saving a bit of time and money in the sword creation
No function. There's just no point in sharpening that bit, so why spend the time and effort?
Fingering or greater defensive capability when combined with parrying hooks, saves the expense of sharpening it.
Thank you for all the answers but most them are on one or two at best of the question i asked
After the recent Todd video I'm still very keen to know what effect arrows had on horses during battles. How deep would arrows penetrate into horses? what armour did horses have? What written evidence is there about horse loss in battle?
A sufficiently wealthy knight could certainly afford plate armor for the horse, though the legs and belly would still be left exposed. Otherwise, mail, leather, or padded defenses were used.
You can kill a moose or an elk with an arrow. If you hit a part of a horse which is not covered with barding it will have a similar effect.
Something like that 160 lb longbow from the video is going to drop a warhorse with any good hit. Horses and other similar herbivores aren't even particularly durable compared to people.
Horses where often lost or wounded in battle, so there where things like knights getting there horses valued so the king could refund the horse.
@@InSanic13 I've seen many armoured horses in tournaments but would plate armour be used on campaign? I'd have thought battle horses would have had quilted fabric armour with plate maybe on the face, lower legs and maybe flanks?
Axing the important questions
If you don't ax you'll never know.
Tomahawks are what the Indians had axes to ^_^
We don't 'ax' anything in the UK except for wood, but OK.
British expressions: “now that’s just a different kettle of fish” lol
I've heard some guys say, "a different ball of wax". Britishisms. Gotta love 'em.
I wonder if Matt is a fan of The Prisoner. That phrase is used prominently and memorably in the final episode.
@@Scott-qq9jd Prisoner is a classic. Very common expression though.
@widhbnw efDwdwDW nah, the US and Canada doesn't really use it. I'm not sure about Australia
@@leifcian4288 that's a fair point, though we do know he is a fan of at least some classic TV. He quoted Dad's Army a few weeks ago in a video. I like to think, without any real evidence, just a bit of context, that he's referencing The Prisoner. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones...
Axes are easier to use than swords if you're an Orc. They get a +5 skill racial.
Also nice taste in music. Love The Doors.
But we are humans so swords and maces are easier.
But Axes are easier to take Down doors than Swords.
I like Pink Floyd. Think "Ummagumma" track - "Careful with That Axe, Eugene"
I keek getting the picture of someone jumping out of an alley with a rapier swinging it down on someone like a baseball bat
Thank you, Matt! I'm designing a roleplaying game and your videos help me tremendously when it comes to its combat and weapon mechanics.
I know that feeling well .. doing the same. 😁 -Zwerg
Something people of these time would have handled everyday would have been an axe. Wood heat would have been a necessity of survival. From a young age people would know how to swing one with accuracy and power. Wood working would have also been common with many types of axes. Swords wouldnt have been used daily. They are also cheap to produce
This is a thing. When i was a kid my grandad made me walk around the house with my shotgun (unloaded obviously) before hunting season because he said your body gets used to an object by handling it, and you'll be better with it. For a person who doesn't get a LOT of time to 'practice' with their weapon, going to a weapon that is something they handle pretty much every day is like getting 'free' training which may make them far more proficient than a guy who picks up a sword a couple times a year.
theswinginrichard bear in mind that wood chopping axes are not balanced at all; they are effective in one manner (overhead chop) and are not easy to swing quickly and efficiently in defense
Well that is my point, though in my case I am actually more nifty with a bill hook and a slasher than an axe. ruclips.net/video/WoprVhpOKIk/видео.html was the way it was up until the middle of the twentieth century and for some of us it still is.
Like knives, everybody had an axe and they were cheap to produce. That probably explains the axe's popularity in early medieval (Viking, Frankish, Anglo Saxon, etc.) armies - a warrior with spear and shield and little wealth could grab the knife and axe they already had as secondary weapons. Or it they had a bit more money a purpose built fighting axe still cost a lot less than a sword.
As swords became more affordable and commonplace, the axe evolved into an anti-armour weapon wielded by armoured warriors - because axes hit hard and are more likely to penetrate mail or cause blunt force trauma through armour than a sword is.
@@hunterdelta1585 Hatchets and such on the other hand would be more similar to the one handed axes they use. It's still the same 'sense' in your hand, switching to a war axe which is thinner and a little lighter wouldn't actually be very different. You'd be used to it.
I suspect that many people, especially "back in the day", used an axe with regularity. With that use comes a degree of comfort and familiarity, with a derived perception that the axe is 'easy to use'. The swords I've held (maybe just bad reproductions) always feel awkward. I've used dozens of axes and they all feel familiar and comfortable to use (for me, now). Just my experience.
I love that your response is exactly two away from somebody with the exact opposite experience.
Yeah, it seams axes are more intimate to some and less intuitive to others, and the same for swords 😁
Battle Axes are used nothing like tool axes though.
@@gabzdark07 .. but user of the tool can increase the speed and hitting power of the weapon. I personally have freaked people out by how far I am with an axe and how hard I can still with one. Expressly one guy who was significant stronger and faster than me hand to hand. 🤔 Only reasons I could figure was that I chopped wood a little when I was a kid, beat rugs fairly often, then as an adult took an unarmed martial art and applied the principles of power to beating rugs even since. So, in conclusion, if you want to be fast with a battle axe take karate and beat rugs a lot 😉
I'd say that a proper sword is less awkward than it is simply unfamiliar. Holding a sword feels completely unlike holding anything else.
Also, you mention an axe rarely turning in the hand, but one quick anecdote: my father was a commercial pilot. Shortly after 9/11 when everyone was still on heightened alert there was a crazed passenger that tried to enter the cockpit underneath the door (before they were reinforced). He couldn’t fit through the gap and while the flight attendants wrestled with him outside the door his arm and head entered the cockpit. One of the copilots grabbed the fire axe (short stubby with a pick on one end) and crouched to do him in, but because of the size of the pilot and the cramped space could not get a good swing and just clubbed the man with the flat of the axe.
He was eventually subdued and handed over to authorities :P
Great video. In regards to potential future videos, I'd love to see a video discussing Glaives. There are many RUclips videos on swords, spears, axes and halberds but very few about Glaives. I'd love to know how they stack up to other pole weapons, how their usage differs and in what contexts they would truly thrive in. Secondary idea... one-handed sword + shield vs. longsword (or even a two handed great sword), which has the advantage and in what context. Thanks for all the great content. Cheers,
What people forget is that the swinging of the weapon is usually less important than tactical aspects like footwork/positioning, anticipating attacks, creating angles/openings etc. The opponent can have the perfectly aligned slashes and pinpoint accuracy thrusts, if you can outplay him with your footwork and angling, he will have a hard time hitting you regardless of his refined technique.
But that's not what the question is.
Experience is a huge factor, probably the biggest. While not my skill set, one of the best combat spar opponents i have ever seen was a axe and board guy, from a small country town in Sweden none the less. This was in the eighties, he grew up with his 4 brothers, all older, playing "combat games" as he called it. No football, no baseball, no any other sport, like us. His combat spar though? insane. Seen him combat spar it all, short range, long range, 2 Hand, sword and board, pole axe. He was a natural monster, and only used the axe and board. We all, in our group, already had a couple years in the game, and in our early twenties, he was 18. Thirty some years later I have yet to see anyone close, even with vids everywhere now.... A great vid thx
i love when you talk about swords vs axes. i watched your sword/axe videos a ton of times! (even Dual Axes video).
Thank you for all your hard work putting these videos online. I would love to see a series on how to teach fight choreography for the stage for noobs. I am the weapons manager and main fight choreographer for Albany Civic Theater in Oregon (USA) and would like some tips
I think the point most people come from when they talk about ease of use is how "easy" it is for someone unskilled to get a hit in that does actual damage. Like you said a sword with poor edge alignment to, for example, the forearm might just do "superficial" damage but a flanged mace to said forearm will most like break said arm if swung with intent.
THIS. Any unskilled idiot can deliver a lethal blow with an axe, but it's a lot less likely for said unskilled idiot to match the damage with a sword.
You asked for a video suggestion Matt. Although I get the feeling that you don't wish to discuss this topic I would love videos on using bladed or percussive weapons against home Intruders in modern times.
Matt saying noob was the gift I didn't know I needed.
In early modern period finland axe seems to be the preferred murder weapon. Propably because it was available in every house and everybody knew how to use it.
Were firearms commonly available?
@@deathbyastonishment7930 legal, but rare and expensive
Matt's point about axes reliably dealing grievous wounds seems relevant. Also, axes have considerably more immediate stopping power than a knife - people with knife wounds tend to bleed out over several minutes, often giving them time to injure or kill the person who wounded them. Much less likely with an axe wound. A knife is a terrible personal defence weapon, except as a deterrent.
Even if it wasn't available in every house, the next hardware store probably sells cheap axes for 10-15€... And even people who never have had one in their hand know which way the sharp part has to go.
@@nirfz back then the axe was usually home made. In finland there was no tight villages afterv16th century, but only individual farms. Due to long distances and need to be self sufficient even basic blacksmithing was usually done at farm and not contracted out to a specialized smith.
I am suprised that you didn't mention (in this or in some of your earlier videos) something that I find as first and biggest reason why people think some weapons are easier to use than swords - they are blunt. OK, not axes, but maces, clubs, staffs, canes, even warhamers to a degree - they are blunt and you don't have to worry about edge alignment. Well, you can use axes like that, IF you turn them backwards, which you just said is bad option.
Anyway, love the channel, love the t-shirt. And, since you are asking for a sugestion - maybe some video about your collection? You know, just the weapons you like and you are keeping, not those you are planing to sell.
Cheers, Matt!
I was actually taught to use an axe and strike with the backside, however that was a specific purpose. The technique was specifically designed for hunting with hatchets and axes, and making sure you didn't ruin the pelt, and a thrown hatchet or axe done right has enough force to do the job without striking with the axe blade, while you'll still have many uses for the tool in bushcraft.
The way I'd generally viewed it was that tool-axe usage was a widespread thing for a lot of people, giving a degree of transfer to swinging a similar unbalanced weapon-object around to hit a target. A viable sidearm axe also being more easily acquired in the Early Medieval than a similarly viable sword, so the axe you can get and have a vague concept of how to use is "easier" than the sword you don't have and have no familiarity with.
Two points for the axe: 1) the sword does not have a marker showing the best area to impact the enemy with, axe is the small blade bit. 2) More run of the mill people have used a hatchet than a sword sized knife, so it feels more familiar and using the head of it to hit things (kindling, branches, trees) is already more practiced. I beleive this would hold more true historically (talking random citizenry, not trained people). That said, sword still holds advantage.
That was my thought. A commoner might have grown up using an axe. A tool you use everyday is probably a more effective weapon than a real weapon you have no experience with.
@@SilverFoxKnows1 More effective or not, likely feel more comftorble at least, which feeling a little confident can be verry helpful in a fight.
In the period where swords were common, a lot of people owned swords. In some parts of Europe (like England or parts of Germany) it was even _mandatory_ for people with over a certain amount of yearly income to own swords and other weapons. One supposes they trained with them as well
@@duchessskye4072 Deppendant on time, some times supposed to have, sometimes not. As for supposing training, I would be hessitant to suppose that unless there was a training requirement, like there was with bows for a while.
Well some city militia had mandatory training sessions, but that is obviously very situational and does only apply to a few places
I think it's easier to imagine yourself being good with an axe than with a sword, because most people know how to use an axe or similar things. A sword is pretty much a mythical object to most people, while an axe is something you can get from a nearby hardware shop.
I think the basis of the misconception lies in the fact that most people assume that everyone of the time periods would already have fairly advanced axe skills from the routines of daily life. Everyone used axes at some point and many people quite frequently. It would have been a very familiar implement for most new soldiers.
And here I got my hopes up that we were going to see the patented Matt Easton reverse-axe-grip technique again!
One point I’d mention, while this video focused on offensiveness, if given the choice I would much rather have a sword in hand than an axe when it comes to trying to defend myself from an attacker! Even minimally trained I think most sword designs will offer better options than most one handed axes when it comes to warding blows and setting up counters.
I felt we got a bit tied up with duelling and tomahawks in this vid. Rather than getting into the guts of battlefield weapons for a battlefield with armour. I didn't get the bit talking about axes hammers and maces as single weapons with no shield. While we eventually got to the correct context I felt it wandered around a lot in this vid. :)
Holding the axe close to the head you can use a punching action for up close fighting. Once you manage to get close but then you also are leaving the rest of the handle open for an opponent to grab at. Excellent video as always.
The way I was taught to use the tomahawk growing up is as part of a system. Tomahawk in the right hand & a knife in the off hand. Our people used shields & rudimentary forms of armour when Europeans 1st showed up but their guns but the guns quickly saw our tribes discontinue their use.
10:25 You got me there! xD
Absolutely great video by the way, loved your humor.
Ad Maiora Semper.
I'd love to see a video on binding and winding techniques.
After watching your video I think I will have to amend my conception about axes vs swords and say that axes seem more INTUITIVE to use and might require less conscious thought to do decent damage with. The reason I say this is most people even today have some level of experience handling a hatchet, axe, or even a regular old claw hammer. The weight and handling automatically feel more familiar than a sword, how significant of a difference that makes is hard to say. Also, in terms of use and alignment, pretty much all axes are choppers and from my knowledge humans instinctively go from a bashing or chopping motion, something that axes are great at, but not all swords are. I would also say that there is quite a bit larger variation in function and handling if swords over all than there are with axes.
I think this is especially true if you add armor. It takes skill and precision to defeat armor with a sword, but anyone can club someone over the head with an ax, mace or war hammer.
Whereas even people who are familiar with the sword have never held anything else like it. Swords feel very unique to handle.
I'd add the length of the edge. If you're slightly out of measure for the sword in either direction, you probably hit them with something sharp. With the axe, you get a wood shaft or a whoosh.
Could you talk a bit about the single use projectile weapons(pilum, war arrows, javelins, etc.) thrown before engagement(usually by the skirmishers)? On a realated note i read somewhere(a site about indigenous canadian MA i think) that some fighters would throw their war club or tomahawk while advancing towards an enemy to distract or wound them before closing in & finishing up with knifework.
This helped me de stress, I am an RN in the states, always enjoy your vids
Great talk on axes. I'd like to see it more in a live sparring match buy two equally matched combatants. Love the channel keep it up.
Hi Matt, nice DOORS Shirt :) .. and what about 3:00 , what if you had a short light axe (like this Norse Hawk) in your right hand and a Bowie knife in your left? I think that would make a great combo too ... against somebody with a rapier. Cheers, Erik
I started with axes. I bought a bushcraft axe, thew it at a log once. That led me to buy proper throwing axes, a year later I buy a Dane axe.
In my opinion axes are top heavy, swords are so nimble and easy to move. In general, I'd say swords are far easier to use than axes, but most axes will certainly get the job done, especially with a shield.
Tod from Tod's Workshop recently did a video on his Swordbreaker creation, with the idea of catching a sword, so basically, a parrying dagger, could you maybe do a video on that topic as I find it's very vaguely covered and I'd be interested.
Thanks Matt @scholagladiatoria. I've been working on an RPG system, and wondering if melee combat skills should be broken down to specialisations or not. I have no intention of having fully separate skills (dagger, sword, axe...) like in the bad old days, but I am wondering about broad category specialisations. Is it meaningful, in your opinion, having to pick a focus? For example, Swords, Polearms or Unarmed combat, and then have a penalty when fighting outside of your focus.
If I go down this path, I've been thinking of having "basic" weapons available at full skill regardless of focus. Currently it's knives/daggers, spears (polearm specialists get an advantage with them), axes and maces.
I think you get the gist. Is it in your opinion more true to life to just have "melee" combat skill, or to break it down to categories and make people choose what they are best at. If the latter, would something like "axes" or "axes and maces" make a sensible category?
Easiest weapon: Spear. It's literally written in our DNA. Second easiest loadout would be Mace & Shield. Protection, power, and no edge alignment, just cover and swing. If you added a spike to the end of the mace, so you could thrust with it, then you could arm a number of otherwise untrained soldiers pretty effectively.
I'd reverse that. Swing thing top to bottom is everybody's first instinct in a fight. Comparatively, a thrust is really weird.
I'll reiterate a previous request: I'd love to see you (and for that matter, LindyBiege, Shad, Metatron, SwordSage, Skallagrim) compare relative damage between weapons in the context of Fantasy RPGs. I tend to thing the typical values used are not correctly, relatively speaking. But I would love to heard what you think.
From my point of view I think this boils down to people generally being more familiar with an axe then with a sword. As a person who never actually trained armed combat, I'd probably feel more comfortable wielding an axe, because with an axe I would trust myself more to do damage as I have already used an axe when chopping wood but have never wielded a sword. So even thought I know that objectivelly a sword is the better choice, subjectivelly I would be more at ease with an axe.
there is a biomechanical study that shows that hitting downward, like you would with a hammer (or an axe) is the strongest we as humans can hit, without moving our legs. When you move your legs you can ofcourse ad mass to the hit by moving behind it and that changes the parameters, but if we are just standing more or less still, or not moving beneficially, we as humns hit the hardest by hitting down. This might be, might be, a benefit for the axe, not because its impossible to do with a sword, but perhaps its more intuative to do with an axe. Ill find and link the study if you like. This is also probably why the so called icepick grip is favoured in the manuals for daggers
I would also add a factor of familiarity in favor of the axe for unskilled fighters. The axe is a tool 1st. Axes, hammers and mauls are mainstays of the laborer so the muscle memory, basic swing and aiming skills are allready there. Spliting wood vs skulls; disjointing game vs disjointing an enemy; hammering iron vs hammering sombodys ribs...there is a translatable familiarity of handling skill that should not be discounted.
Have you done a video on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of blade-throwing in any context? Was the axe handier for that purpose in more scenarios than would be the throwing of a sword?
Axe is inherently easier to use than a sword. It's simpler, has fewer techniques to learn, is a tool that you use often, hence getting a lot of practice. It's also smaller, easier to carry and have on you at all times, and lighter. And the rapier will lose to an axe plus shield. Why would an axe wielder not use a shield???? Plus, you can throw axes effectively. And if you have a jacket, you can wrap it around you to block, capture or deflect a sword blade. An axe will hurt you with percussive damage as well as hacking and cutting damage.
Hi Matt. You brought up the point I thought this was about at only briefly at the very end; Edge Alignment. Isn't that way easier with a mace or Warhammer then a sword. And even with an axe?
I would add a really important caviat to this: Dane Axe, hand axe, or Francisca? The Dane axe is harder to use, but has a massive reach advantage, and can easily have as much point control as a sword (unless the sword in question is a rapier, protorapier, or smallsword). In the *context* of a hand axe, I would agree with everything you said in this video. But with a Francisca, well that's mainly a projectile weapon so it would inherently take more skill to use in that way, but can be used in hand to hand combat. It typically has less reach than the other two, (definitely the Dane axe) but when fighting almost chest to chest, the Francisca would be the best option between the three. Are any of them better than a sword? It depends. But I would definitely give the *edge* to the Dane axe because of its reach, maneuverability, and sheer force in the blow, even against armor.
5.18 - Could have sworn Matt was going to say 'and don't underestimate the importance of the pommel' :-D
Me too! Ha!
That obviously goes without saying.
The tomahawk is based on the French throwing axe. I saw a video on them, the soldiers would charge the enemy with several axes strapped to them, throwing them as they went. If it hit it would kill a lightly armored soldier and if it missed they would pick it up as they ran by and throw it again. Until they closed the distance and entered close combat.
The throwing axe also has the advantage of being unpredictable in its direction. So 100 guys throwing a 100 axes would be an indefensible mess.
You could also throw the axe at your opponent in one on one. Skilled throwers have them hit the ground and bounce up making it harder to defend. But a skilled thrower could also probably just land a blow right in his opponent.
It was such a good mid to close range weapon the Camanche and Apache Indians made their own versions. Some focusing more on throwing others on tool use and close range.
I'm sorry but this is a little off topic but could you do a video on using shovels in combat. Entrenching tools were used extensively in hand to hand combat since WW1. It might be interesting to compare them to hand axes and war hammers.
Would you make a video on thumb rings? To me they always look like they would cause more trouble than help, but there were quite a lot of weapons that that had this feature in their design. What is your opinion on them, how advantageous they are, if at all, etc.?
Suggestion for vids: the superiority of triangular cross-section for thrust-only weapons such as the smallsword or rapier. Or put another way, would you trade cutting capacity for a stiffer blade, all else equal?
If not, then there is always the topic of the duel with Nick Thomas, of course.
How about a video on the grips of swords? Like the shape of it and the materials used (leather, horn, fish skin, etc).
A suggestion: Could you Test the Gladius chopping balistic gel vs a sword of the medieval period curious on that
Check out Theign Thrand channel. He does a lot of weapons vs ballistic gel and armour vids.
@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 WILL DO! thank you mate
I always choose a sword over any other one or two-handed weapon, against anything else... except the ax and dagger combo; that's the only thing I prefer over sword, even sword and shield.
Great t-shirt Matt! I didn’t know Superdry did band shirts
That was a very satisfactory summary of the whole topic and yeah, I can see now why I was instinctively thinking that the axe would be easier to use and why a was pretty much wrong xD
Therefore, a big thumbs up!
"generally speaking, a tomahawk was something that they had access to."
had AXES to
heheh
Very informative! Great T-shirt!
I will add that confidence in the weapon could also be a huge component. I know I would feel more comfortable with the axe than the sword. However having minimal experience with them I will instead compare them to a gun and a bow. I have used both a gun and a bow, however I know that I am more comfortable with the bow, particularly traditional bows (not compound or crossbows). If I had to hit a target at 30 meters I would feel much more able to hit the target with the bow then with a gun, despite the gun being objectively more accurate and easier to use. Much of this comes down to the fact that with a gun I would second guess what I was doing, and I would make mistakes due to nerves that I would not make with a bow. The same is probably true for most people with axes/maces vs swords.
Could you please do one on the modern history of HEMA? Specifically, how the timeline of when individual treatises were rediscovered/translated affected what we see being studied today?
Might be worth a video -
When did swords cease to be considered viable military tools and what was the context that drove their relegation to ceremonial use?
I’m guessing it was late 1800’s, as I haven’t seen much discussion of swords in the trenches of WW1 where melee weapons (sometimes improvised) were still very much in use and it seems like someone must have at least tried.
As much as I enjoy axes, also in a one on one duel, centrifical force also plays in to it. All the weight is at the far end . Harder to stop and change direction mid swing.
Great Shirt Matt. They were an awesome band. ✌🏽
I would think it does not have so much as ease of use but more to do with familiarity of use. I would say most back in period 90% of people would be more familiar with a axe from using a hatchet or something the like as a tool turned battlefield weapon.
I always understood the 'axes are easier to use' thing as more of a statement about durability and situational awareness. As in, practically anyone can pick up an axe and swing it around in whatever unschooled way they like without any great risk of damaging it. Even if you just wail on some guy in armor and the axe gets dull, it will still do axe-like things as long as you keep swinging it. And by extension, using an axe requires less battle acumen because you're essentially removed from having to worry about avoiding things it won't work against or that might damage it. It's 'simple' to use because you can literally pick it up and swing it without any other real concern.
On the flip-side, swords are 'harder' to use in that same context because it's much easier to damage a sword or render it less effective if you don't know what you're doing. You can't just wail away on that armored opponent because you could dent, dull, or break/bend the sword and render it anywhere from significantly less effective to completely useless. While your level of battle acumen may not need to be significantly higher, it does require more understanding. Even if it's only a *little* more.
So it comes down to, in a prolonged battle scenario (because I think this type of argument is usually made about how things like Saxon fyrds or other 'peasant' levies were armed), most people with no military knowledge at all could pick up an axe and use it all battle and still have a functional weapon by the end of the battle, whereas it may be far more likely that the same person armed with a sword would have a borderline-useless object in their hand by the end of the battle. Or will have died because they were smacking their sword against mail and therefore doing nothing and got a spear in the face for their trouble.
I'd liken it to the difference between driving a car with automatic transmission and driving a standard. Almost anyone can make either one go forward. But with absolutely no training at all, the automatic is slightly more likely to still be a functional car by the end of the 50km journey. The standard will have gotten them there, probably, but also probably no longer have a functioning transmission.
I'm not saying this is a correct interpretation. Only that that's what I understood as the intention behind the 'axes are easier to use' statement.
agreed, although i think allot of people these days would not understand that they needed to push in the clutch (or some other simple thing) with the standard transmission.
Question: How about for modern urban warfare? Tomahawk, Viking style Axe, Japanese Short Sword even Bayonet, or Combat Knife, Trench Knife, which is best modern warfare weapon? Would love to know before I deploy again. Need to be able to carry all day and can use in close in fighting in an urban setting, and against an enemy with modern body armor and helmets? Thoughts?
If you give someone who’s never used either, they’d most likely have a deeper, better cut with the axe, at the very least break bones, even if hitting with the back of the axe, if you slap someone with a sword, it’s going to do very little damage that would incapacitate them. A completely untrained person would do far more damage with an axe than a sword. Therefore, it requires less training than a sword, to cause severe damage. They’re easier to use because of the balance and design.
"You can swing any object you like at someone else." *menacingly brandishes pet ferret*
Omg, thank you so much for addressing tomahawks! Still, I wish you'd pick yourself up a good one! I've been doing more research, and it turns out that, like knives, many of the best steel tomahawks were made in Sheffield. Unlike knives, however, there emerged a good number of American armorers who produced tomahawks of comparable quality by the late 18th century. The tomahawk presented to the Shawnee warlord Tecumseh by British general Henry Proctor still survives in near pristine condition, since Tecumseh died in battle very shortly afterwards. One of the reasons often cited as escalating tensions leading up to the War of 1812, is the American troops' finding of weapons in the Native American towns stamped with "GRIII" during the Tippecanoe campaign in 1811. I love this related quote...
"There is ample proof that the British authorities did all in their power to hold or win the allegiance of the Indians of the Northwest with the expectation of using them as allies in the event of war. Indian allegiance could be held only by gifts, and to an Indian no gift was as acceptable as a lethal weapon. Guns and ammunition, tomahawks and scalping knives were dealt out with some liberality by British agents."
- Julius W. Pratt
that's the concept of "stopping power" takes place.
Hey Matt, what do you think of the axe fights in the "Last of the Mohicans?"
You can use the axe as throwing weapon more easily, yes I know of that play in fiore regarding throwing a sword but its far easier to throw an axe accurately, And since I'm in the UK I have no intentions of nor do I encourage anybody to throw either object at anybody!
Why the fuck would you want to throw your weapon away?
@@floppinfish Maybe if you've got a sidearm like a sword, throwing your axe or spear could make sense in certain situations.
Could there also be a disconnect somewhere due to the difference in the (possibly perceived) ease in learning how to fight with an axe compared to a sword and then (probably falsely) equating it to mean that the axe is easier to use?
Here's a more or less unrelated question: (just because this is a more recent video on the channel)
For context: I've been doing some boxing for about 8-9 years (on an purely amateur level) and almost all my experience/contact with HEMA is coming from RUclips.
Recently I looked in on a HEMA beginners workshop at a convention.
What immediately struck me was the stance the instructor was teaching, which was basically an exact boxing stance.
Now I am wondering: Are there transferable skills from boxing to HEMA/sword fighting and if so, which kind of sword (or sword-shield combination or axe or....) would have the most similarities between the two.
Interestingly one of my old trainers always said: "Boxing is fencing with your fists"
I am of course well aware that boxing and sword fighting are two entirely different things with only some basic similarities due to body mechanics & such things.
For me this is just a fun thought experiment.
If anybody here in this comment section has an opinion, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
Cheers
I had a comment ready, then you covered it at the end. IMO, it's easier for utterly unskilled people to just attack correctly to semi-correctly with axes (or spears and hammers) than swords. It's easier and more instinctive to hit with the center of percussion on an axe than with a sword. Many types of swords need skill to be used effectively. You can't drunken caveman swing a rapier.
I'm proud of you. Took over 3 minutes to say the c word.
You danced around it fairly eloquently in the intro
its easier to use a club than a tank, but you can spend your whole life mastering either
There's one way in which a mace or club could be considered "easier to use" than a sword, and that's the lack of concern for edge alignment. On the other hand, I would argue that swords have a higher "cap" on how much they can benefit from skill compared to an impact weapon.
In Matt's universe, "relatively concise" is nearly 15 minutes!! Best universe!
As a novice I quickly understood that footwork is everything (for a beginner I say) and I would have no idea on how to compensate for reach when wielding an axe.
I will translate this video in simpleton.
"Are axes easier to use than swords? No because sword has more hurty space."
You have an excellent command of "simpleton". Is it your native language? LoL just kidding.
@@krknfmkr8919 No but I am fluent in idiot.
@@jumpingbean69 it was the main language in the meat packing plants where I worked decades ago.
@@jumpingbean69 seriously my favorite axe (I make edged weapons) has a 17" cutting edge and a 39" haft
No Superdry shirt?!
Okay dude, who are you and what have you done to Matt?
When considering minimally trained peasant levies, peasants are more familiar axes. The axe is also readily on any peasant farm. With an alarm call goes out, that, “enemy is at the gates”, an axe will probably be the first thing the peasant farmer will be the first thing he picks up to defend hearth and home.
12:30 You summed up why people think axes are easier to use than a sword. An axe newbie can land more effective hits than a sword newbie.
naah. stabbing is quite natural. you can even get lucky.. and have someone run up on your blade if you hold it out.. even easier than having to swing it. :)
I believe when people speak of weapon's difficulty, they rather thinks of learning proper techniques. So I'm not sure, you really adressed the right issue. It is more about (I think): If you'll take a random guy/lass, how much time it will take, to make him/her really profficient with either of weapons (everything else being equel, like talent, predispositions, etc.).