Did VIKINGS use AXES because they were.. POOR?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- In answer to my previous video ( • Did VIKINGS use AXES a... ) about why the Nordic peoples (AKA vikings) loved axes so much, a lot of people seemed to think it was because they were poor, lacked resources, didn't have swords and were generally lacking. I don't think this is correct and in this video I attempt to set out why I believe that.
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easto...
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-sw...
Viking: "Will he really need this very expensive mail shirt in the Afterlife?"
Another Viking: "You know, I heard in Valhalla, they all fight naked..."
A third Viking: "I think it would be disrespectful to bury him with it, even!"
They actually were quite impractical that way. They threw tons of good weapons away by putting them in graves or tossing them into lakes & ponds.
@@manfredconnor3194 so watery bints could distribute them as the basis for the executive power of a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes are oppressed.
@@RonJohn63 Seems like an excellent system of government to me.
Violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system!
@@Divertedflight it might be better than ochlocacy.
For many years I did Viking reenactment. As part of this is agreed to take part in some filming that involved a Viking amphibious landing. With absolutely no forethought, I hopped off the boat into waist deep sea water. My very pretty sword and scabbard was completely submerged in the sea. This made a real mess of my blade (lots of repolishing was needed) and it took about a week for the scabbard to dry out. Salt water and steel are not a good combination. Dunking an axe in water is much less emotional that doing the same with a very expensive sword. So, maybe for a quick shipbporne raid, a lot of the swords were left safely wrapped up in oilskins (or similar) and an axe was grabbed instead. A bright red axe is far less depressing than a bright red, insanely expensive sword. On a broader note, swords and spears are kind of civilised - an axe screams extreme prejudice.
I would agree with you and i believe generally a sword with a leather or felt scabbard is horrible sidearm if you spend much time on a ship. other than the issues you brought up i would like to add that in ship to ship combat an axe would suit you better in the confined space.
You make a good point. Axes would also need far less repair on the seas with limited resources. If your shaft broke you can make a new one on the fly until you got home and could finalize the repairs.
A sword is a more...civilized...weapon in some ways. It is a weapon of defense as well as offense in a way that is somewhat less threatening. A drawn sword is a warning. An axe though, a readied axe means business. It means violence is imminent.
The sea giveth and the sea taketh away.
You make a good point I never thought about the survivability of a weapon on medieval sea cruises.
Sweden is famous for it's non-lack of high quality steel.
Abundance?
At the time, there were also plenty of export of steel from Norway as well. Scandinavia has plenty of iron (and thus, steel)
And Finland, which was largely either controlled or allied with the Norse.
Meanwhile, the Danes had really high quality flint.
Vikings with iron axes: “I wish to go raiding so I can get rich!”
Vikings with steel swords: “I wish to go raiding so I can stay rich!”
Vikings with iron swords: “Dammit, it broke! I should’ve just brought an axe…”
It is harder to make a sword than an axe. Economy and technology still plays out an effect. It is not economical resones because of a lack of resources efficiency but poor economical activity enough for that ,incomprisen to Muslim world or China or India. The Vikings even at highest point are nothing incomprisen with Muslim Spain or middle east or Byzantium richness. If they are not poor they would not raid. They not necessarily trying to live by raiding but they are certainly not capable to do whatever they want and so thus wants more wealth to do so. You don't need the axe head to be steel anyway. Iron is just enough. They are very effective against armed and not armed people and very effective against maile armor unlike swords not much. Plus swords needs much more maintenance. Swords are not as common in Europe during 5th century up to 11th century as in China or middle east. Short swords especially when powerful armor is present more or less becomes secondary weapon. However we don't see Viking armys having swords on mas as a secondary weapon. In front of thick or more than one layer of maile armor swords are useless. Even against one layer that is will made swords can't do much effectively and efficiently needed. Swords are more complicated in use and marital practice than an axe or mise or a staff stick. Axe is more effective at destroying shields too without damaging themselves alot.
@@ailediablo79 I find it hard to imagine how an axe could be more usefull than a "sword" in "marital practice" - unless it's a very unhappy marriage. - No offence ment. The implications of that little spelling mistake gave me a lot of merriment. Cheers for that, even if it wasn't intended.
@@arkenarikson2481 These are Viking women you are taking about…
@@allangibson2408 XD
There is a good point here. Yes, plenty of wealth was flowing to Scandinavia. But was it flowing to the people who went a-viking? Raiding was not the aim of these people, it was a means to acquire enough property to settle on a nice little farm.
Anglo man flexing his sword collection to poor nordsmen, smh.
Amazing that humans use axes and knifes since Stone age till now.
you had your chance, you blew it at Stamford Bridge.
🤣🤣🤣
Anglo max strike again
A lot of people are commenting things like "Vikings were used to using axes as tools" or "Vikings used shields and axes are good against shields" are forgetting that these things were also true of basically everyone else in Europe. I think to understand why the Norse used an unusual amount of combat axes you have to look for an explanation that doesn't also apply to everyone else. Almost the only thing that distinguishes the Norse from other cultures of the time was the fact that they were ship borne raiders. Matt's point that they were mostly engaged in offensive operations against lightly armed and unprepared villagers ties into this. But I think that more importantly swords are harder to maintain against corrosive salt water than axes. The Norse would spend long weeks at sea in open topped, low sided vessels, maybe fight one or two brief actions, and then jump right back into the boats. Keeping an expensive and (comparatively) delicate sword rust free though all that would be a nightmare. If the water gets into the hilt fittings unnoticed you might find the handle snapping off at an embarrassing moment. An axe will still batter down a fleeing monk even with a healthy coating of rust, and even if you just sack off oiling it for the whole voyage, it's probably retrievable when you get home, and replaceable if not.
This!!
Axes work better than swords on plate armor and helmets. They are a serious blunt force weapon.
@@allangibson2408 Plate armor was not being used in Europe at this time in history.
They were riders, where use of tool smaller then polearm that can cut a rope, hand, shield or doors with similar ease was essential. The second point is, rest of europe had axes, just less of it, weighting more polearms in the mix.
@@bentrieschmann Axes were even more effective against mail armor. In fact, I'm surprised the axe wasn't _more_ popular. With a sword, to do serious damage against 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 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 even punch the mail through skin and flesh. Mail really sucks at stopping blunt force and hard impact, and is most useful against cuts.
I can still see a 'fashion' or culture thing being part of it. Maybe not the whole answer but even now people will try and make their own culture distinctive and different from others or their neighbours. Might be talking bollox of course, wouldn't be the first time.
This is what happens when you send a bunch of lumberjacks out to pillage.
hahahahah
There are several viable reasons for prioritizing axes as the weapon of choice for those who went raiding. they all boil down to the ease of use,care, maintenance, and repair both in the field and onboard ships. Seafaring and steel with large surface areas don't mix very well. the smaller surface area of an axe blade is much easier to maintain against salt corrosion. The smaller effective cutting edge would also be safer to carry on board a ship rolling in the waves. The more robust cutting angle of an axe blade also means that the blade itself is much harder to damage in ways that would undermine the weapon's strength. The weakest spot on an axe is the handle, and replacing a handle in the field is as simple as finding a sturdy bit of wood and affixing the blade. Any damage done to a sword would likely need an experienced smith to repair. Ease of use and basic utility are also going to be the big reasons, though. You can only carry so much gear on a longboat, so if your primary bit of kit can be both a weapon and a tool that's much less garbage to haul around. Spears share many of the same features that make an axe good, but you can't use a spear in the field for things like camp chores.
Exactly. They were raiding with no supply lines. Why take a sword that if its not sharp is a metal stick when an a dull axe is still an axe?
I would argue that there's a cultural and mythological component to the use of axes, as well; several Indo-European Thunder Gods are associated with axes, that seemingly morphed into hammers later, and thus they carry great significance as weapons of war. In Scandinavia, almost 3000 years before the Vikings, the axe was even then a important cultural and religious item and symbol for war, conquest and nobility; graves have been found where there is almost all the time an axe placed in head height of the buried warrior man, and we know that the Battle Axe Culture brought the Indo-European People, Culture, Religion and Language into Scandinavia, and the Viking obsession with them seem to be a carry-over (and as well as being a fine and functional weapon of war) from that time.
A point of an "economic" argument is that an axe head can be remounted on a new shaft if the old one is broken/damaged, while repairing a sword is much more difficult. You can make a new shaft quite easily with common tools, even in a foreign land on a raid, while repairing a broken/damaged sword is much more difficult, requires specialised tools and skills. If you could have two axes for the price of a sword and you expect a lot of actual combat, not just wearing it around, then having a sword that will break more easily than an axe head is just not worth it.
Swords make sense if you wear them and use them from time to time, axes make sense if you use them all the time. It's good to have a sword, it's good to use an axe.
This might not be a major reason, but it's worth considering nonetheless.
It is harder to make a sword than an axe. Economy and technology still plays out an effect. It is not economical resones because of a lack of resources efficiency but poor economical activity enough for that ,incomprisen to Muslim world or China or India. The Vikings even at highest point are nothing incomprisen with Muslim Spain or middle east or Byzantium richness. If they are not poor they would not raid. They not necessarily trying to live by raiding but they are certainly not capable to do whatever they want and so thus wants more wealth to do so. You don't need the axe head to be steel anyway. Iron is just enough. They are very effective against armed and not armed people and very effective against maile armor unlike swords not much. Plus swords needs much more maintenance. Swords are not as common in Europe during 5th century up to 11th century as in China or middle east. Short swords especially when powerful armor is present more or less becomes secondary weapon. However we don't see Viking armys having swords on mas as a secondary weapon. In front of thick or more than one layer of maile armor swords are useless. Even against one layer that is will made swords can't do much effectively and efficiently needed. Swords are more complicated in use and marital practice than an axe or mise or a staff stick. Axe is more effective at destroying shields too without damaging themselves alot.
Yes, axes are a lot more utilitarian and less maintenance than swords while on-the-go in foreign lands
"axes make sense if you use them all the time"
They (viking raiders) probably weren't using them all the time. Many individuals who went on raids likely only went on raids occasionally, not all the time.
@@ailediablo79 The Norse were still well-to-do enough to use swords instead of axes if swords had been more effective for them but they seemingly often considered axes to be a better pick for them.
@@seneca983 swords are expensive as f man. Even in modern day. Due to the maintenance big swords like long sword and anything bigger than a Roman Empire sword claudius such as the Vikings norse sword or bigger becomes more expensive than haveing full plate armor equivalent of 20 maile shirts in 6 months to a year. Swords are not a joke. Unless you talking about crapy swords. Which is a crap is a crap.
Speaking of the Viking "protection racket": There is an interesting distinction between the words "välde" and "rike" in the Scandinavian languages (here specifically Swedish). The first one could be translated as "power" or "overlordship" and denotes how far afield a tribe or kingdom are able to raise tribute, while the second one means "realm" or "kingdom" and denotes a polity of free men under a ruler. So to take the Swedish example: We have "Svealand", the tribal homeland of the Swedes, which used to just refer to the lands around lake Malar but has come to mean all of central Sweden; then we had "Sveaväldet", the quite vast areas around the Baltic sea from where the king at Uppsala took tribute; and then when the Geats formed a permanent union with the Swedes and forming a more modern realm, this was called "Svea rike" or "Sverige" for short, which is still the name of the country.
and there is obviously still the riksdag in Sweden and Finland, which is actually cognate with the german reichstag (still the building where the government is in, except that the government is called bundestag, literally "federal day". Estonia has the Riigikogu, riigi being also somewhat related.
Iceland, Norway and Denmark have a ting/thing/þing, which is also a name on the british isles and northern germany for a traditional meeting, but has no further linguistic relation.
There is a famous episode of royalty using a "Danish axe" a bit later: King Stephen of England at the First Battle of Lincoln in 1141. When surrounded, he seized an axe and laid about him so effectively that nobody could get near him -- until the axe broke from the number and force of his blows, after which he was grabbed, captured, and held for ransom.
I wonder if being at sea a bit had anything to do with it as its less hastle looking after and axe if it can come into contact with sea water a fair bit.
That's an interesting observation. We have a Norwegian books which goes into weapons, armour, fortifications, and machines particular for navel combat. By this time, the mid 13th century, they still used vikingships, so it's relevant. I suggest you have a read:
deremilitari.org/2014/04/medieval-warfare-from-the-kings-mirror-a-thirteenth-century-norwegian-text/
Notice how they prefer blackened gambeson over mail. You might be on to something. They seem to favour long pole weapons, including longshafted axes on shipboard.
It certainly didn't hurt, and another bit of logic is that smaller cutting surfaces are a bit safer to transport on a small vessel that rolls around a lot. Getting smacked with a loose axe handle is far less scary than a sword that comes free of its scabbard and starts sliding around the deck in a gale.
Axes are mostly wood, they float while swords sink.
Well known as 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.
Fighting with an axe is entirely different from using it as a tool (and the axe is different too). Also, other Europeans would also use axes as tools a lot so that doesn't explain why the Norse would use them *more* often.
axes were also common weapons during later periods, like the age of piracy in the Caribbean.
You don't need a material shortage for weapons that are more resource efficient and easier to produce to be useful. While it is pretty clear they wouldn't have had a notable shortage of iron preventing them from making swords in higher quantities, the relative simplicity and affordability (for lack of a better term) of axes could still have been an advantage
Case in point - SPEARS. I don't see anyone making the claim that Britain, Franks, etc must have been poor because their armies were primarily equipped with spears.
@@evilwelshman Exactly. It's just an idea that armchair historians have come up with, and applied backwards in time.
But then why did the Danes make more use of axes than everyone else? This same efficiency would have been true everywhere, but the prolific use of axes is not so widespread.
@@JenksAnro There is going to be a baseline level of human choice. Why do we not all wear the exact same clothes? Or drive the same cars? Even at a macro level, these differences persist between nationalities. As with most everything in life, things aren't as simple as "because X, therefore Y". They could have simply liked the look of axes or had a greater affinity to using axes (e.g. because they are a maritime culture) that led to them being biased in favour of axes with their efficiency allowing them to indulge in said bias.
@@evilwelshman I personally think its a combination of easy maintenance and the fact that the idea of an axe is something raw and brutish. It's a bit like a sawn of shotgun, it's scary, and they wanted to scare people into giving them stuff.
Armoury manager: hmm, swords are expensive to buy and maintain. I need to axe the budget 😆
Loooool
“Yeah I know you kids think swords are the best thing ever, but my brother in law only makes axes.”
Kek
“Sir our axe head supply is running low, it’s time to spearhead the campaign!”
It is harder to make a sword than an axe. Economy and technology still plays out an effect. It is not economical resones because of a lack of resources efficiency but poor economical activity enough for that ,incomprisen to Muslim world or China or India. The Vikings even at highest point are nothing incomprisen with Muslim Spain or middle east or Byzantium richness. If they are not poor they would not raid. They not necessarily trying to live by raiding but they are certainly not capable to do whatever they want and so thus wants more wealth to do so. You don't need the axe head to be steel anyway. Iron is just enough. They are very effective against armed and not armed people and very effective against maile armor unlike swords not much. Plus swords needs much more maintenance. Swords are not as common in Europe during 5th century up to 11th century as in China or middle east. Short swords especially when powerful armor is present more or less becomes secondary weapon. However we don't see Viking armys having swords on mas as a secondary weapon. In front of thick or more than one layer of maile armor swords are useless. Even against one layer that is will made swords can't do much effectively and efficiently needed. Swords are more complicated in use and marital practice than an axe or mise or a staff stick. Axe is more effective at destroying shields too without damaging themselves alot.
The number of rivets used in Viking ships indicate iron was plentiful. They even made bog iron rivets on the fly in Newfoundland (L'Anse au Meadows archaeological site.)
Brainstorming: less rust while at sea? More heavily wooded area? More useful for setting up camp and preparing firewood while in wilderness? Intimidation? More effective against armoured resistance? Identification? Techniques specific to Axes like hooking shields, weapons, or heads, or shield-breaking? Some religious/heroic affiliation? Maybe the evolution into the Dane-axe holds a hint to its usage? 🤔
They used axes because it is very effective weapons in the way they used it. It is as simple as that, i think. Today we have an almost obscene "sword cult" that seems convinced that the sword is a super good weapon. Meanwhile: The club, the spear and the axe has been around since the dawn of time and they are all still relevant today.
Hollywood, D&D and Samurai movies are to blame I'd say, they are all sources that put the sword at the top of the game. Hollywood borrowed from fencing for those white knuckle intense duels as well as the safety advantage of blunted swords. D&D also decided that swords were the ultimate weapon and with a lot of HEMA enthusiasts coming from that angle, while the whole Samurai craze and their stories and legends again reinforced that idea. Once you do clear the hurdle you start to understand that axes, espcially the two-handed kind were pretty effective overall. The amount of kinetic energy delivered is terrifying, and even wearing armour, you'd know this was the real test of your skills when the other guy came at you with an axe. It evolved into what I still think to be the ultimate medieval weapon, the poleaxe.
I think economics was a starting point at the beginning of the Viking age, but I agree they chose to keep using them when they could have changed. It is very likely they found axes to be more useful as raiders for fighting on ships, for using as tools, and for creating a terrifying personage when they attacked.
There is a viciously cold efficiency to an axe compared to the elegance of a sword. Axes are brutal and aggressive. They are all attack and basically no defense. Instilling fear in those you intend to raid is as important as being truly dangerous.
We see this spelled out in the pirate age of the Caribbean in the 17th and 18th century. Pirates liked having horrible reputations because it made their job easier as most would just give up to avoid the worst predations.
I really doubt they used fighting axes as tools much. The blade profile is very thin. Think more meat cleaver than wood chopping. I agree with the rest of your post. Also axes would be better at breaking bones through mail than a sword. More mass at the tip equals a harder hit.
Axes didn't just appear in the Viking era, their is a lineage going back to Neolithic times in the Nordic countries. Thousands of years of history before the Vikings were even a thing.
@@brettanomyces7077 That further supports my theory.
@@natehammar7353 Your theory seems to imply the use of axes for economic reasons at the start of the Viking age. I don't think economics had anything to do with it.
@@brettanomyces7077 the point is before the Viking age there was less wealth and trade going on in Scandinavia. That is why economics could factor in.
An axe will kill anyone in mail.. will cut through doors during raids... won't trip you up... BTW that's a large and expensive axe... as a highlander I would be happy to use that in battle...
And it floats... which is good when you are taking a beach.
You can smash in a door with an axe. For raiders, that would have been a plus.
Idly curious: what were doors like at the time? Particularly in the areas where they would have been kicking them down? Were they mostly leather, or flimsy wood, or solid - more like what we'd consider an exterior door these days? Inquiring minds wish to know.
I think if that was the case a hammer would be more suitable?
@@llearchmy intuition tells me, if there is treasure, it's probably behind the strongest door in the village.
@@Wrathington you're probably right.
But where some carry a saw for cutting wood, a sword for killing foreigners & a hammer for battering doors, others like to leave more room in their pockets for carrying loot home with them.
@@mikeharris2650 I dunno. I deal with a lot of unthinking people, so... >.> More seriously, tho - if every door in the village would fall apart if you sneezed on it, the "strongest" might not be a very high bar. So... y'know.
Actually curious where I might be making assumptions that are incorrect, really, tho.
These comments still seem to be missing the point that the norse WERE NOT poor farmers.
Weapons and tools have always been different, including in Scandinavia. Weirdly, axes fo cutting skulls are worse at wood than those for wood, and vise versa.
Repairing swords is harder yep!
BUT that didnt stop anyone else. And it wouldn't have stopped the region with arguably the best metalworking.
I genuinely dont understand how so many people seem to be missing the point of this video.
I don't know what planet you might be from but on this planet the vast majority of the population absolutely would have been poor farmers, fishermen, hunters, and trappers. It took a heck of a lot of these people to support a handful of the ruling elites and the small number of craftsmen and traders that catered to their needs. Any time you started to pull people out of this rabble to increase the size of your fighting forces equipping them would have been a challenge. If these people had equipped themselves a shield, spear and long knife would have been the basics and an axe is vastly more likely than the more costly swords which all to often had flaws in the blades unless you forge welded them out of hand made wire which would have been an ultra pain in the arse even for a skilled craftsman.
@@dwightehowell8179 so... the problem here is you're right, and missing the entire point. No MORE people would be farmers.
Well... the leader of the raid was not poor, he was paying for the ship and everyone who got on it. But, quite a lot of the motivation for everyone to go viking, lay in that stuff like inheritance mostly went from father to his eldest son, so if a younger son wanted to be financially independent (and have a wife etc) going viking was a good way to do it.
So while the raiders weren't exactly begging for coins in the streets, the raids were sort of done in part so they wouldn't sink to that.
I personally think it's just a matter of utility. I think things like the Dane Axe are purely weapons, but I imagine many can be used interchangeably as tools or weapons. Not too dissimilar from tomahawks in the modern era.
I agree! In my professional life, I spend 50% of my time in the field. I carry a tomahawk and find it extremly valuable tool. It's easy to see if stuck aboard a boat for a long time you would only want versatile tools. Things that can be used at the farm, aboard the boat, and to fight with.
No. Not even close. This myth that fighting axes are tools need to be done with once and for all. A combat axe is just as good/bad as a tool as a sword is. Your bushcraft tomahawk is nothing at all like a combat axe.
It's like comparing a Lamborghini r6 (traktor) to a lamgorghini gallardo. Try ploughing the field with a gallardo, and you'll have as much success as chopping down a tree with a dane axe.
@@Taeerom Did you even read what I wrote? I never suggested you hew trees with a dane axe. I said that some axes, the fancy ones are purely weapons while some others can used interchangeably. You're analogy doesn't work either, those are two completely different kinds of vehicles. A forest axe and a dane axe are still both axes.
@@nicholasduanetapani5929 A traktor and a gallardo are still both cars.
No combat axe is suited as a tool. You can perhaps shave with one, or cut kindling. But that's no different from a sword. There are no interchangable axes that are both tools and weapons. Axes were (and are) specialized to serve different purposes. I don't use a woodchopping axe to cleave logs, I don't use a horizontal axe to chop wood, I don't use a felling axe to fight with. And I don't use a combat axe for any of the jobs I would typically use an axe for.
Axes might look similar in profile, but they are made very differently. And perform very different jobs.
There is no way anyone would choose to fight with an axe because it doubles as a tool. Just as they did not choose to fight with a sword because it doubles as a tool (it can cut kindling, shave, cut bread/cheese/ham, just as well as a combat axe).
@@Taeerom I'm not going to get into semantics battle with you. You make a lot of declarative, absolutist statements about what people did and did not do over a thousand years ago.
"There is no way anyone would choose to fight with an axe because it doubles as a tool."
Yes they have and still do. A lot of US soldiers still add tomahawks to their kit for that exact reason. The Gurkhas are famous for their use of kukri because it is a multi-purpose tool/weapon. It won't do everything as proficiently as tools specially designed for it, but that's the trade. Would you rather carry multiple tools specific to their task or one tool that can do all of them well enough. It makes sense that a warrior who spends a lot of their time on the move would want something to lighten their load. I get that you're sick of the stereotype of battleaxes being slow and clunky, but I can't help but feel that you're overcorrecting.
They did not use axes because they were poor, there are plenty of stories involving swords from before the iron age as well as plenty of stories of swords that bent during combat and the owner had to retract from the front to jump on the sword to straighten out (pre iron) in Scandinavia most of our iron deposits have become available in modern times but we did have a lot of "myrmalm" this is iron deposits in bogs. You might've seen it when you took a walk in nature that on the surface of the bog there was an oily substance, that is "myrmalm" you can spot such deposits by grabbing a bit of the silt putting it in your mouth and rubbing it with your tongue against the roof of your mouth, if it is "sandy" in texture it is "myrmalm" which due to its nature is high in carbon and excellent for creating weaponry. No o believe the axe was used due to cultural reasons as well as it's many uses. For example one can use axe to climb, chop wood, break shields, make firewood, slay enemies, grab as well as pull. And considering the Vikings did their raids far from home such a versatile tool is significantly more utilitarian and economical tool than to bring several separate tools that can all be done by one. Being a reenactor and hobby fighter primarily Viking age I have to say I love the overall utility of the axe over a sword in a shield wall, one can grab and pull a shield while ones friend with a spear stabs at the now vulnerable enemy, to take one example. In a 1v1 I would lean towards spear and seax as it is very light and fast and combined with a seax you grip along the spear shaft can be used very creatively, like putting your speartip in the ground and pushing the shaft to block the blow of the sword while going in close with a right handed jab with the seax, in Scandinavia we call this a "Swedish hug"
Myrmalm/Bog iron was not suited for swords due to its high silica content. It could be done, but it required a lot of work (more so than with for example iron ore from Rammelsberg).
This is really hard to read mate
I do also think axe was used because it's a good tool: you can open a man, you can open a door, you can chop firewood or clear a path. Axe don't need scabbard, you can lean on big ones, small ones are very light, all require little edge maintenance. Also, they hit hard and they hit fast. Detach from handle and you have just a stick (walking stick when you got bigger one) and a head you can easily conceal. Axe is a great all rounder.
Did the Vikings use paragraphs, or did they rely on a shield wall of text?
@@fiendishrabbit8259 Much of that slag however was removed in the bloomery and then also during the forging process through pattern-welding the blades. Scandinavian bog and lake iron ore works just fine for blades. It should also be noted that swords (and blades in general) at the time came in every quality; from poor, bendy and easialy dulled blades to superblades.
Vikings, by the nature of their chosen profession, did not have any shortage of wealth. These were individuals who were flush with cash; they traded from Iceland to Samarkand; they had cornered the slave trade from the Baltic to Gibraltar.
They did not choose to arm themselves with axes because they were poor.
@@path1024... That's not quite the same correlation.
Americans, by the nature of their chosen profession, did not have any shortage of wealth. These were individuals who were flush with cash: they traded from Asia to Europe; they cornered the wage slave trade from South America to Africa.
They did not choose to arm themselves with Glocks, because they were poor.
@@path1024 Nor is Bill Gates a patriotic, or premium specimen to represent an Average American.
@@markbyrd7710 How about Rich Californians and Rich New Yorkers don't represent all of Americans?
@@YeomanArcher hate to nitpick but south América didnt trade slaves with the US
The potential fallacy here is the use of evidence and factors from later periods (specifically: "in the height of viking power", as Matt described it) to make generalisations and conclusions regarding earlier periods. Sure, the average viking was much richer during this later period, vikings would not have been particularly rich in the earlier period. This is because they, like virtually every other society at the time, would have comprised mostly of peasants. It's not an army of aristocrats setting sail across the ocean, but rather a group of peasants under the banner of a few such aristocrats. There aren't enough aristocrats around for all the vikings encountered to be comprised entirely of them. And you can't claim that because vikings were later rich, they must thus have been able to afford swords right from the beginning prior to them attaining their wealth.
The reason why I'm harping on this is because the crucial question is why vikings STARTED using axes in the first place. Why they continued to do so later on even when they had the means to make and use swords instead would likely be in part because it worked, continued to work, and they were beating the guys who had a preference towards swords so why would you then want to switch to the weapons that the losers were using? Also, by that point, the vikings would have developed a cultural affinity for axes (hence why even those of a higher class used axes as well, just more elaborate and expensive to make ones) as well as tactics adapted for axes rather than swords.
Three things here:
1: I don't really trust your "mainly peasants" argument here. That may have applied to the general populace but I doubt that your average joe would have gone a-viking just like that. They had too many things to worry about in everyday life, tending to the fields and lifestock, etc. Too many responsibilities and too little time to suddenly just go travel for a few months to possibly return either with wealth and glory or not at all. Viking raids had to be led by at least a few people who already were rather wealthy (because, y'know, longships aren't free) and if you were some kind of local chief or lord leading that kind of expedition, you would have staffed your crew primarily with your following and that following would have consisted of trained warriors whose equipment you paid for and since you paid for it, it would have been the best. The kind of people who really could afford this kind of lifestyle had to be wealthy and high-ranking enough to have servants or subjects to leave in charge of business at home and that kind of people could have afforded swords if they wanted to.
2: Swords were still fairly common and many of the swords were in fact frankish or anglo-saxon designs so I don't think your "wouldn't have taken the weapons off the losers" argument holds true. It's not that the vikings shunned other weapons, they were just more partial to axes than their contemporaries.
3: Swords aren't that much cheaper than axes. If it was just a matter of cost, everyone would always have just used spears because spearheads can be much smaller and lighter than either.
Matt is brilliant in extending one sentence worth of info into whole 14 minutes, lol. With respect
Maybe it has to do with the combat style? If you are fighting with the shield in front and protecting two thirds of your weapon, you get more out of the weapon if the weight is in front, like they did not fence with swords, they fenced with the shield an struck with the weapon. (Sry for broken english)
That makes perfect sense to me.🤔 But viking swords well pity frunt heevy already.
But e.g. the Anglo-Saxons also used shields but apparently didn't use axes as much (though presumably they used spears more often than swords in pitched battles).
Nosfaratu will now tell us about axes
1- Axes are also tools.
2- Swords were not pointy in that period
Of course, culture and tradition is an important part!!!
Depends on the axes tho, most big battle axes won't be good to cut wood...
Also would say, since axes are also tools a lot of the movements you can make with an axe (like chopping) are also ingrained in a potential figher from day to day use (ofc not trained fighter level). This would make it an "easy to learn" but prolly hard to master (because of inherent weaknesses, basically like the katana-edge alignment discussion) weapons. So basically the bar to learn the necessary basics (not everyone has to be a master swordsman on a raid or in a battle, just know their role and job) is quite low. Also i liked the armor argument from the last vid. Basically if I go in light or not armored due to "raiding" reasons and the opponent might wear armor, bringing an armor piercing weapon really negates his advantage to an extent and amplifies you encumberance/endurance/mobility wise.
It's also proven that axes can destroy chainmail armor most of the time from Thrand's riveted chainmail testing. In fact, it would also penetrate into flesh as well depending on the axe head geometry but will most certainty destroy the chainmail. Compare that to the swords at that time which WON'T do that because they're so broad and not pointy enough haha,
From what I have heard they were pretty good at making very high quality swords. I don't know much other than the Ulfbert swords but the fact that they knew how to work at that level would seem to indicate that there was no shortage of steel. I would love to hear more about what is known about the size of their metal working industry compared to population. It's on my bucket list to research this area more. If they were not importing wootz steel the they had some very high level metal working industry. I am not a expert on history but maybe someday I can be but I think as a tradesman that looking at that industry should give some indications of what th cultures reasons were for doing things. Just for the record you don't just grab a piece of wootz and treat it like some sort of standardized product. As far as a Smith was concerned it was totally different. Even if it was imported it would have been super expensive to learn how to use it well.
I believe their preference towards Axes stems from the fact Axes are Multifunctional tools that have many uses outside of just battle and it doesn't hurt that they look cool AF either.
I think the "they look cool" point is very underrated. The thought of getting yyour face smashed in with an axe is very scary, and if people dont dare to fight you have an easy win.
Something I thought of is that swords of the period are only marginally more nimble than axes. In previous axe vs sword debates it feels as if axes are being compared to swords with narrower points (such as type XV) when claiming swords are nimbler than axes. Yes, swords had different mass distribution and distil taper, but they were still meant more for chopping actions. With that in mind, I’d say “vikings” preferred to emphasize hooking and grip shifts among other techniques.
Yeah, the viking era sword or Frankish sword is a choppa. :D
When looking at those times, it seems the idea of the nimble "long" sword wasn't very common. The celtic, frankish and anglo-saxon swords weren't too dissimilar to the roman gladius.
i mean, an axe is a tool in almost constant use from a very young age, due to the nature of Norse areas requiring much more firewood on a daily basis than the case would be further south. feels like they were just more practiced in their use, and you can use it to hook a shield and shields are common. The nature of the viking raids were predominantly intimidation based raids, if you stab someone, that's scary, what is scarier though is smashing somebody's head into two pieces with an axe with one swing.
Axes are extremely useful for seafaring as well - cutting lines in a hurry, hacking away at various wooden bits. The boarding axe was a thing until wooden ships were done away with, as you sometimes need to cut off broken masts and whatnot in a hurry during storms so your ship doesn’t capsize.
The question seems like a problem. They used axes because they were effective, right? So isn't the question "how were they used that made them more effective for these people?" No one persists with suboptimal arms for long, whatever other uses and significances they have. I think you hit on it in your 1st vid, but it could be developed.
People do like the idea of not having worse weapons don't they. If anyone thought that they were using a worse weapon they probably would have tried to change that as soon as possible. Weapons being cheap matters to a government but any user is going to want the best he can get.
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing. One question I have is how easily could a viking replace a lost axe? Say it got lost at sea, could he purchase or get a new one made on credit?
Average Danish farmer here. Sorry for so many words. Living the lifestyle leads to owning the kit. We've only got a couple of acres of woods but I'd be shocked if we have under 50 axe heads laying around in various different sizes, ages and states of decay - plenty over a century old. Think of it like fashion and how we use clothing to show off today, we'll have dozens of shirts and jackets. For people who use axes as tools, using it as a weapon (or a weaponised version of it) makes sense. Scandinavia cleared our forests much later than the British Isles to my understanding, so their usage as a tool has been longer and more consistently needed here. We're still taught to, and left to use tinder axes, hunting/fishing knives in playschool here - shaping sticks, cutting meat and bone to see what they actually do. Back to your comment - there is mention in some of the Sagas, I seem to recall, of work being done 'on tick' and the lack of payment being brought up at 'the thing' annual meeting (tinget) - murder ensues because Iceland but I'm pretty sure there are a couple of different stories that carry a similar feel. Credit was made evil by Christianity (as such - with usury), that being absent - I don't imagine credit would have been difficult in a time when everyone knew each other through generations. Simply put - if everyone is using an axe, they're much easier to come by and more abundant in general. Personally think it is because most axes can be fixed by their users where a sword needs (with what they cost - deserves!) a weapon smith if harshly treated/in battle - an axe just needs a hammer, grind stone and maybe a new shaft in it, all work anyone can do and in little time.
Before the start of the viking era, scandinavia might have had the resources, but the expertise to forge good swords was lacking (or so I have heard), and you don´t go into a fight with an unreliable weapon. By the time all the gold, swords and slaves (many of which, where probably good sword makers) from all the raiding, was pouring into scandinavia, I would guess it had become a cultural thing (you know, axe fighting skills taught by the father to the son). Besides you said it yourself Mr. Easton, it´s a good weapon to destroy shields or hook them (shieldwall).
Cheers right back at you ;-)
I have a possible explanation. Since most boxers are right-handed, you become more proficient at fighting right-handed opponents. If a left-handed person fights you, it may be an advantage for them because you have to change tactics. Well, if everyone is fighting with swords (the right-handed boxers) and you come in with an axe (the left-handed boxer), you have an advantage.
Very, very interesting .. great follow-up to the comments.
Thanks for sharing .. I'm inclined to go along with your thinking here Matt, it's not poverty that made the Vikings choose axes - let's face it, axes are cool!! ;-)
Genuine question: was swordplay advanced enough (and well known enough) at the time for swords to be THAT much better than axes, particularly with shields?
Vikings maybe preferred axes because they offer many benefits over swords:
multi purpose for fighting and for building camps, defenses, chopping wood, boarding other ships, hooking, smashing in doors, more powerful in shield formations (hacking over), etc...
The multi-purpose thing is something I've mused on. If Vikings are setting up a camp, or even felling wood to repair their ship, they need a tool. An axe is a tool and a weapon.
@@engineeredlifeform and axes probably also have advantages when fighting against armored enemies. Hit mail with sword it will glance off, hit with axe it will hurt a lot more and maybe break bones.
For the same reason native Americans preferred tomahawks...they were mutli-purpose combat tools and were excellent at breaching wooden defensive structures. A viking attempting a quick raid along the English coast would much prefer running in and breaking down a closed wooden door quickly before whatever troops could be mustered arrived.
One thing thad shouldn't be overlooked is that every single man had one or several axe(s) because when living in a cold region it's an essential tool. Not everyone would have a sword.
That's maybe one reason why they liked axes, everyone was familiar with handeling axes and would probably use that as their first weapon, so when offered the opportunity to use a sword, some may prefer to keep using what they're used to.
That became a tradition.
I am thinking the same thing. Many of the places where the axe seemed to be particularly popular were heavily wooded and the people in the area have a great reputation as woodworkers. It would make sense to use a weapon that handled like the tools that they were used to using on a daily basis, especially fi they were just part time warriors. Additionally, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out how much damage an axe can do so it would be awesome for intimidating unarmored peasant levies.
I'm fairly sure that you can't compare an axe specialized for cutting trees to one for fighting (and if you're going to chop a lot of wood, you'd definitely want the one for that). Generally, the head of an axe for chopping wood is wedge-shaped for splitting the wood apart, while the axe for fighting has a thinner blade. Shad has a video over on Shadiversity in which he tries out different axes on wood. It can be done with fighting axes to a certain extent, but thin blades tend to get stuck in larger chunks of wood. Also, Matt mentions in his first video that using the Dane axe for cutting wood would probably damage it rather fast. In terms of overall weight and handling, I assume there'd be a considerable difference between the two sorts of axes, so proficiency with one doesn't automatically transfer to proficiency with the other.
"One thing thad shouldn't be overlooked is that every single man had one or several axe(s) because when living in a cold region it's an essential tool."
Like Arken Arikson already mentioned, tool and weapon axes are different. Also, an axes is just as much an essential tool for e.g. the Anglo-Saxons so that doesn't seem to explain why the Norse would use axes in battle more often than e.g. the Anglo-Saxons.
@@arkenarikson2481 One handed combat axes from the viking period have heads with a thickness similar to modern bushcraft axes for the most part.
Woodcutting axes aren't necessarly thick or wedge chaped.
Don't mixup woodcutting axes and splitting mauls.
A woodcutting axe needs to be quite thin and relatively sharp in order to cut deeply in a piece of wood, and there isn't many riscs of getting stuck in the wood if you're not chopping a piece bigger than what your axe can handle.
Remember that there are different axes for different applications, for exemple felling broad axes are used to chop down decently sized trees, and their heads are sometimes somewhat close to dane axes in terms of shape and thickness.
Though it can't be denied that dane axes are obviously optimised for fighting, it's obvious that they were inspired by some felling or carpentry broad axes.
Museum often label viking axes are either "tool or weapon" because it isn't easy to make the distinction, as far as we know many viking combat axes were also used as tools.
What about family traditions & multi functional reasons?
Family traditions of heirlooms legacies & the vikings teaching their next generations most commonly with axes related MA & works.
I am sure the vikings were also frequently chops trees & build boats or other stuffs even during their raids/ expansions.
There is no mono-causal reason why the vikings preferred an axe, and they usually had more than one weapon, as it is also shown in this video series: Swords and axes where seen as the most noblest of weapons.
The Norwegian national coat of arms is still a lion holding an axe, the symbol of the Archbiship of Nidaros is two axes, St. Olavs axe. (after 1030) Both the protestant church of Norway and the catholic church uses this symbol, but with different heraldics. It's a national symbol, martyr symbol and the symbol of the universal church.
The axe has been linked with state power, the power of prosecuting and upholding the law. The axe could also be used to inforce law, executions where done with an axe. (but also swords, so not uninanymous)
The benefits of using a specialized battle axe was that the smaller ones where light, used for rapid assaults, could be used in conbimation with a shield. The axe did a type of damage that almost never healed from the wounds caused from it completely.
The cultural value of the warriors weapon also needs to be understood. Their weapons wasn't just some sort of a tool. They gave their weapon names. They engraved them and put symbols of their family, values and home culture. This was a warrior culture, so their weapons where very important, not only in this life, but also in the afterlife.
The axe has been used far longer than the sword. The bearded axe was used more in the early period, while the general term broad axe was used in the later viking age.
A warrior also identified himself with his relations to his weapon. Even though in life they used several weapons, it's more normal to find a single weapon in a viking grave. This is most often the axe, then the sword and then a spear.
The long tradition with the shorter types of axes, especially in Norway, is due to special norwegian traditions, according to the norwegian defence museum in the booklet "Norskbrukte marine blankvåpen" (melee weapons used by the norwegian navy throughout the ages) They went out of use in the later army, but the navy used short axes in close quarter combat, and examples of very similar weapons, but with pikes added exist from the 15th century.
Ahmad ibn Fadlan's account of the Volga Rus Vikings says "each man has an axe, a sword, and a knife, and keeps each by him at all times." It also talks a lot about how extravagantly wealthy they were, and how they liked to show their wealth off. So they were rich, they all owned swords, and they all still chose to carry axes as well.
Could it be that the axe is a primary weapon for raid as you said in both videos and thus it is also easily to maintain while sailing. Sword damaged in battle or better in skirmish sometimes required simiths. But for using it in boat raids axes were repairdon borad ready for another hit and run in multiple days. This scenario would suit also for Slavic wariors and raiders who were most of the time river folk (maybe in some cases living on boats). And also for afformentioned Lombards who were allegedely only Germanic horsemen raidng and conquering Europe mostly horseback. Almost laike eastern nomadic peoples(Huns, Mongols, etc.).
Yea but as we know resources dont make a country rich, you can have all the iron in the world but no money to pay a swordsmith, and scandinavia was specially poor due to the crap weather and soil. Now, did some peopole get rich raiding im sure. I think that the big axes were used because essentially they are polearms like halberds which are very effective
You never seem to get to the point.
The people with fancy grave goods like swords were the ruling elite. That will tell you bleep about what the lower classes had. I know in Anglo Saxon having a spear, shield and sax meant you were upper class and a sword may have meant you were a petty king!!
He's being hopeless about not being able to tell the difference between the elites who owned the long ships and the men that pulled the oars. If a raid went well they might be able to steal enough silver to buy swords or a farm but when they left home...not so much. Most of the wealth went to the men that owned the long ships.
Maybe there is also a cultural component to it, the pre-bronzeage battle axe culture in scandinavia and the importance of thors hammer as a symbol make me think that shafted weapons might have had cultural significance to them (thors hammer is also closely associated with axes, as axes and hammers in indo-european storm gods seem to be interchangeable from a theological fewpoint)
For me the obvious answer is simple, maintenance,if you're a fast moving raiding force then you don't want to waste time faffing around maintaining swords,which requires a lot of looking after,an axe is a far more robust and low maintenance weapon
The reason I can think of
1. A first the Norse were mobilizing large groups of volunteers equipping themselves for hit and run raids. So the resources could be part
2. The axe isnt effect be weather and water as much as a sword (like its an old school AK47)
3. If you are doing smash and grab the axe is better at breaking locks doors
4. Axe is better at breaking shields hooking shields and hurting armored people even is a sword is better at unarmored combat
5. If you have to only take one an axe or a sword and you are trying to travel light and one is more useful as a tool more compact durable easier to make and repair maybe you opt for the axe
6. cultural once the axe was associated with being a Viking then you had to use them to keep up the reputation even if swords had caught up
Axe is smaller then polearm and easier to transport in ships and fight in buildings, and still it has more power then sword. So when europe was using polearms as a primary weapon, they used axes :)
I do think that it's not necessarily entirely true that all vikings were definitely wealthy because a lot of the people who chose to go raiding were men who didn't have a lot of prospects in life. All the land was bought up, all the women were married off, so they went raiding to seek their fortune abroad. There were even people like Bjorn Ironsides who was essentially sent to live in exile so that he wouldn't try to oust his siblings for kingship. Naturally, there were some wealthy backers of raiding expeditions, but the bulk of the raiding party were probably low-middle class, at least before they started raiding. (Bearing in mind that the bottom social class back then were serfs and thralls) And this would be more for the early Viking Age, as time crept on, raiding turned into more of a rich man's playground.
I'd love to hear your take on why Irish gallowglass all used great axes as their primary weapon. They seem to be unusual in that whole battalions of troops were all armed primarily with great axes, rather than just a elite group. It probably has to do with the low level skirmishing, ambushing, and cattle raiding which were the main types of fighting in Ireland at the time.
That's a really good question.
The Gallowglass was all about intimidation. In Ireland, Ceithern were the main troop type and were basically seasonal, part time warriors that were drawn from the local men during times of war. The problem here was than in all Irish Clan groups there were individual septs that had a figurehead who potentially had the prospect of replacing the current king/chief of the kingdom. Irish succession was not premogeniture. Leaders could be drawn from a large group of related individuals to the current leader. Because of this, Irish lords preferred to hire foreign professional standing bodyguards (galloglass) because it meant they were only loyal to their employer and were not questionable as to who they really served in their loyalty or as easily affected by local politics. The logic was that you did not spend your money on arming and training those around you who might actually turn against you at a later point and be utilized by your internal rivals.The Hebrides from which the Gallowglass initially came were small islands that could not support a large amount of land owners and so there was a ready market of idle warriors ready and willing to train for the job and seek their fortune in Ireland. This suited Irish lords as they did not need to train them and could choose only the biggest and strongest who would be loyal to them as long as they kept them in pay and outsourced their upkeep onto the the locals who hd to feed and house them. The spar axe and choice of the biggest and most brutish warriors as your personal bodyguard was as much to intimidate on an internal political level against rivals as it was to be effective in combat against armoured English soldiers. A man swinging a big axe could stall a few men at a time which is why gallowglass were favoured as a rear guard to ensure a lords escape as was seen during the Desmond Rebellions.
Personally I think it might be a cultural thing just like some cultures favour the bow sword or spear over other weapons
Regarding the Dane Axe, I think vikings and huscarls used them for the same reason men-at-arms used poleaxes: they are just a good shock weapon to bring to the battlefield and trash people through their armor.
As for the one-handed variant, I think it has to do with vikings fighting mainly on foot. A sword is a really good backup weapon for a man on a horse because of its lenght. However, once you're fighting on foot, well armored, and aiming to fight other well-armored people then the one-handed axe is a valid alternative to the sword as a backup weapon since it could be more useful.
However, maybe the "wealth" aspect is a bit too overstated in this video? Surely you'd have less fortunate vikings who'd naturally gravitate more toward the axe than the sword. Just like how less wealthy soldiers would go with spear + knife.
Hi
I like the foot vs mount argument. Comparing housecarls to a 14th century man-at-arms on foot in heavy armour. They both chose, surprise surprise, a 2 handed axe. That is, the dane/pole axe. It's conspicuous.
Still, what happens in the higher end of society doesn't reflect why norsemen in the wider population favoured axes. So, why?
It has to be a cultural aspect to me, just like how Irish favoured the javelin. The Scottish favoured the spear. The Welsh/English favoured the longbow.
As a Norwegian who travels a bit in the outback, the axe is man's best friend. Sorry Lassie. In winter you'll die without fire wood. It's just a really handy travelling companion. We've always exported large timber, especially to Iceland. Shipbuilding was a big thing. The norse word for horse was synonymous with a ship, because that was the common method of transportation. They're all minor reasons that, combined, makes total sense.
I have 5 axes. Why? I don't know. 😁 I just identify strongly with my axes. Stop judging me.
Thank you.
Also, there's The Best Tool for the Job. Not the best Weapon, there is no best weapon, but I look at Viking axes, and I see the Job of Viking. (As a verb, not a Noun) The best weapon for a musketeer is a musket, because he's a Musketeer. They used swords too (If you believe the stories) but he didn't stop being a Musketeer, because that's his job. Vikings were sailors. First, and foremost, they were also great fighters, but you can't be a great fighter without the longboat, because the longboat is how they got to the fight. Likewise, a Knight was a horseman. So, his Lance, Armor, Sword, and Shield was designed for fighting on a horse. Even if he fights off a horse, you can't really take the horse out of the equation, because he rides a horse to battle, and his kit is designed around the horse. Same thing with a Viking. Your average front line Viking spent months on a longboat, before he spent a few hours in a raid. Even if they set off a Viking to raid a specific island, their weapons, and armor have to fit on the longboat, right? Look up Boarding Axes real quick.
It is indeed important to keep the bigger picture in mind. the raid itself is in the end only a small part of it all. the travelling would be the biggest obstactle in the end. I dont know how much metal went into longboat, but could it be that the high quality steel ended up in them as to limit the corrosion of the sea. biasing the axe data more.
@@Dylanm0909 Or, it could be that they used the Axes for woodworking. Have you ever tried to hew a beam with a sword? Any sword. All right then, you have to handle an Oar, sling your shield over the side, and have an ax handy for cutting ropes, or whatever. You might leave the Sword at home, with your Son, and leave more room on the boat for loot.
@@Psiberzerker "Look up Boarding Axes real quick."
I don't think they were boarding enemy ships very often.
"Or, it could be that they used the Axes for woodworking."
Not likely the axes that were made to be used as weapons.
@@seneca983 Boarding Axes weren't used primarily for Boarding. They were used primarily for Firefighting. Cutting rigging in an emergency, and usually those Emergencies emerged in ship-to-ship battle, but that didn't necessarily mean either ship being Boarded. So, don't let the name fool you. You just can't look up "Naval Axes."
Which axes? Bearded Axes, Dane Axes (Great Axes) the Vikings had all kinds of axes. Skallagrim has show a lot of them, he's kind of a Collector, and a lot of them would work just about as well for certain types of Woodworking (Look up Felling Ax, hewing Ax...) Any one of them would be better for woodworking than a sword. Any sword.
It's a hell of a lot easier to use a tool as a weapon than a weapon as a tool. We don't have any of their cooking knives, so let's just assume that they didn't eat, either. We have plenty of examples of their woodworking, and plenty of examples of their Axes, so which ones were woodworking axes, and which ones were exclusively battle axes? All of them? How do you know they never fought on the water? Can we assume that they're the only warships in those waters, AND the Vikings never fought each other? I hear a lot of "I don't know" dressed up as proving the negative here.
It may still be economics, just in a less direct way. Scandinavia was located on the fringe of Europe, and was somewhat behind the parts of the continent located in or close to the former Roman Empire. It seems to have stayed poorer than those regions of Europe. It's possible that the axe _was_ used more often in earlier centuries because it was a less expensive weapon, and that during that period the Scandinavians developed a particular affintity for it, and developed a fairly sophisticated martial art around its use, one that took good advantage of the axe's advantages. It may have developed into something of a cultural badge as much as a weapon during this period, in a way similar to that in which the kukri has among the Gurkhas. In other words, even after Scandinavia had developed more and become richer as more wealth flowed back into it, they may have stuck with the axe because they had grown a tradition around it and regarded it as special to their culture in some way.
I'd go with the biological standard explanation: It evolved out of utility (less cumbersome on a boat) and was driven to extremes by sexual selection.
Scandinavian winter sucks and you got to stay warm, preparing firewood with a sword just not gonna cut it. Having to repair boats could be a need when out about.
So I think it comes down to the tool possibilities and simply just having to carry less. Why drag a sword around if you still want an axe with you, they both can be good for fighting but only one is useful as a tool.
I love the idea of Vikings running a protection racket xD
Great follow-up video to the comments.
The wisdom I grew to understand, The coastal regions being relatively Iron poor, and that is where most of the people are (at least until the far inland deposits were discovered) they relied a lot on bog iron. Axes are not as iron intensive as swords. So they used using axes a LOT. Developed ways of fighting that made best use of the Axe. Those ways worked well, very well. Then cultural inertia took over.
I'll go with that explanation
@UCfVbB4nD0PRm1JGjQPA1TjA If you look at where their deposits are, mostly inland and to the north. They were not discovered/exploited until later in the "Viking Age". Not many surface mines either.
The way the vikings fought was more about how they used a shield, then how they used a weapon. Bearded axes are fantastic at dealing with shields, and doubled as a tool used to make boats and shields. That's my theory.
I think that I agree. When fighting in a shield wall, an axe is a better weapon than a sword.
me sitting here wondering why im thinking about faith no more lol
While iron and steel swords were absolutely avaiable, the average guy might still not have been able to afford one and opted for a cheaper weapon like an axe.
Imagine soldiers today would need to buy their own guns. I am pretty sure you'd see quite a few soldiers using outdated, decades old assault rifles without any modern bells and whistles simply because they're cheaper. AK-47s would probably be the most common weapon in any military. And even if they go for something new they might not get the absolute best because it's expesnive but rather something more budget friendly.
And letz's not forget soldiers today are often professionals, while the majority back then were not. So the burden to get their own gear for war comes on top of the all other espenses they might have in regards to their actual job (like a farmer or craftsman needing get tools and the like).
Some pro Russian Eastern Ukrainian rebels had bolt action rifles when the Russian army took over command. In an area that had been in a state of civil war for 8 years at that time and where automatic rifles are accessible to some degree on the black market. So, that checks out.
Great followup. I'm poor, now where do I get a greataxe?
One easy answer is:
Try break in a door with a spear or a sword.
A perfect executed viking raid would be a sneak attack at dawn preferably before people has even woken up.
And not just breaking stuff an axe can be used to get over palisades and walls instead of ladders and or rope.
As long as you can hook the axe over the top you can climb over rather easy.
Then you have naval combat where grappling hooks were the main assault weapon(in northern Europe the ram still ruled the Mediterranean), cutting of a truly thick and tough rope with anything but an axe would just be silly.
As for east Europe most cultures that came after the viking era that used axes were located along the river systems the vikings used for raiding conquest and trade.
The Byzantine guard did not just use viking axes it was almost exclusively made up from viking mercenaries.
And such small and insignificant countrys like Ukraine and Russia all started out as viking trade and settlement sites.
the "Havemal' requires every body to be armed at all times - a hand ax inconveniences you less than a sword - strap a M16A2 to your body and go about your daily work and see how it goes.
M16 strapped on all the time: see USA
@@b1laxson I did it in Iraq
Okay, no. Vikings weren't poor. In their era, they weren't even close to poor. So, anything you have to say about Axes "Because they were poor" just isn't going to get off the ground. Look at their gold. Look at all their gold, and their swords. FFS, they not only used swords, but they also arguably had the best swords of their era (And region. I have to say that, not in the world, but in Their world, or the part of the world where they Dominated.) The poor Vikings, the sailors on the longboats, and the oarsmen probably used Axes for woodworking, and maybe fought with them because they couldn't afford Viking Swords. However, the guy commanding them had all the gold, and a sword, because he wasn't poor.
I still have to point out that the Norse, and Skandinavians weren't the Vikings. The Vikings were Norse, but it was a job. The Spartans weren't all Hoppilites, either. They had Hopplites, and even the best Hopplites, but they also had farmers, stone masons, wood workers, and shepherds. So, if we're talking about The Vikings, we're talking about the Vikings. Scandinavian Marines, and Pirates. Not the Norse, just the Vikings. We don't know what the Norse farmers used, because they didn't sing Sagas about them.
Great video as always Matt, you got me thinking and I'd love to know, did the Vikings have blunt force trauma weaponry available to them and if they did, what sort of weapons did they use? I find the history of the Vikings an Incredibly fascinating subject, would love hear your take.
If you have a single bearded axe you can always turn it around and hit with the other side.
And it would be worth pointing out that when societies choose a weapon for economic reasons, its usually something like the godendag or flail or other farming implements.
I think in this case the better use of economy as a term is "economy of scale" while they had the know how and material wealth to use swords. They couldn't produce, distribute, or maintain them on a scale that made carrying them in high use/high risk scenarios feasible. Any bit of steel the size of a sword made in this time period is going to be prone to stress damage. That's not a problem if you use it infrequently and have access to supplies, skilled labor, and time to repair or remake it. Axes. one the other hand, are a bit easier to manufacture (meaning less skilled tradesmen can be brought to bear making them offering a wider talent pool for production), and are far easier to maintain on an extended time frame in field conditions, and are far more useful as a non-combat tool than a sword.
Not all of them were rich. Especially in the early Viing age. In the beginning, the first vikings were simple farm hands, who were pressed into service, and only hand those tools they had on hand,-which was a hand axe which they used to clear brush around the farm, and a boar hunting spear, plus a shield.. It was the more established and succcessful warriors, who could afford steel goods. As for why they kept the axe in use in later periods?? Maybe it was a weapon that-in their rookie years-they just grew a prefference for. Or, they just found it to be a very effective weapon.
I don't think that's neccessarily true. Consider: You have the leader of the raid who has to be some kind of lord or chieftain or nobleman, someone who already was quite rich to afford the longship. This person likely also would have had a number or followers, people that had above average equipment and training because they had been equipped by their lord as his personal guards. Depending on the influence of the lord, that's already a pretty sizable crew.
Farm Hand on the other hand? Why would you take them along? Maybe if you were going to war and needed troops, but going viking meant going on an expedition. You are gonna be away for weeks or even months and you don't even know what you are gonna find. Sure, you might end up raiding villages and monasteries, but you also might just end up trading a bunch.
Either way, you don't wanna come home half a year later and realize noone has been tending to the fields or feeding the animals and your entire estate has gone to shit because you insisted of bringing your farm hands along.
The first few raids would have had to have been made with fairly high-status warriors and merchants because those were the people who could afford going on a journey like that. Later when the norse knew for a fact that there was a lot of profit in raiding and also had captured some slaves to fill in work places, that's when more average folks might have been part of these raids and at that point the leader could have afforded to equip them as well.
Plus, war-axes and tool-axes are really quite different in construction.
Once again, answering the questions nobody axed
An hatchetable pun, sir.
I might suggest that while there were several cultural and utilitarian elements to the use of axes, it may also have been the fact that due to the higher level of mobilisation (remember that the King of Norway feilded as large an army as the King of England in spite of the dramatically lower population). Obviously once you mount the raid the truely eyewatering cost of the ship meant that presumably meant that the ship owner could probably equip every man on his ship with a sword as well (or at the very least quickly pick up some pre-owned ones). However, if half the lads are the sons of free small/mediumish farmers and have never held one before, or at least not trained with one regularly, that wasn't super usefull. Let them use what they know. So you build your tactical doctrin around axemen. And then when the doctrin works why change? Of course this is just speculation.
How about, axes were used a lot because everyone used an axe in their daily life and it was a very familiar object that people had plenty of experiance using
But lots of cultures used axes a lot as tools and still preferred swords as weapons.
@@danieledwards3376 Swords were likely somewhat "gentrified" in a way. Practicality vs the "art of war". Even today the Northern Eeuopeans are very practical if nothing else
The theory of iron/steel shortage is stupid. The proof is the quantity of nails used in the construction of langskips. Nails can absolutely be replaced by wooden pegs, but nails are just more convenient. And they chose to use nails. Even on smaller boats. Really, there was no shortage of iron.
I don't think you can replace the nails with wooden pegs in clinker built boats.
@@leifroarmoldskred6370 - You can. You drill a tapering hole, you insert a tapered peg untill it comes at a stop, and then to secure the peg you split the narrow end and insert a hardwood wedge just like you would do when you hang an axe.
Maybe it’s easier to get in and out of boats with an axe? The Vikings liked to attack by boat. A sword is easy to wear at your side on land but it could get in the way on a boat - an axe may even be useful for hooking onto stuff and clambering out of boats.
Another boat related tactic: Vikings would occasionally build new boats for the return voyage by felling trees and rebuilding all from memory. Axes could be used for that, though working axes would be better than battle axes.
You mention the re-emergence of axes and maces with the advent of full plate but an axe blow against maille delivers much greater percussive force than a sword and thereby more likely to break bones or cause internal injuries. If you want your enemies to go down quickly hit them with an axe. Combat isn't always about killing the enemy, just take them out of action.
This is reflected in modern warfare, where some of the projectiles are specifically designed to wound rather than to kill, as it takes 3 or 4 people out of the fight while dealing with the one injured, where simply killing would only reduce the opposing force by one soldier. Cheers!
Axes were far more effective at smashing shields than swords were is what I'm thinking. In an age where shields were the primary means of protection on the battlefield, it makes sense that you'd use a weapon capable of destroying them.
Everyone used shields and fought against opponents with shields, not just Scandinavian raiders.
@@IceniBrave yeah exactly. That's kind of my point. Everyone used shields. Why not use the weapon best at destroying shields when not many other warriors did? That's one of several reasons they were successful.
@@Son-of-Tyr as Matt points out, they weren't unusually successful, especially in pitched battles. If axes were so effective at overcoming shields, they would have been far more popular throughout history.
@@IceniBrave I didn't say highly successful, I said successful. Take a shield, set it up and take turns hitting it with an axe then a sword. Then see which one causes more damage. This is just my theory that seems more reasonable than "they were poor". We are all entitled to an opinion. Believe whatever you want, I'm certainly not opposing different theories. This just happens to be mine.
@@Son-of-Tyr If that were the case, why didn't e.g. the Anglo-Saxons use axes as much as the Norse? There has to be some reason why the Norse used axes *more* and others *less* and shields likely aren't the (main) answer because shields were universal.
Is it also because an axe may have provided some advantages to fighting in sheild wall formation? Like hooking someone's shield etc?
Possibly, but what I think is often forgotten is that the spear/polearm was the primary weapon of that time period and for most of the pre-musket era. An axe or sword is a sidearm in a shield wall. Swords were made for hacking and were not the thrusting type of the Romans. So a sword or axe serves the same role, but I agree with you that the choice of an axe gives you more versatility in that type of fighting. It's not like you are using a sword effectively for parrying when you are in formation.
Could it be that at some point they developed such a successful axe fighting techniques that it would self-perpetuate the use of axes?
Being poor doesn't really dictate much regarding weapon choice.
Pintados warriors from the Philippines were known to raid China for iron to make more swords to raid again 😄
The vicious cycle of poverty in full aggressive swing here.
Idk about that. It depends on the context but generally speaking the rich have more access to better weapons and a variety. You don't usually see a peasant with a poleaxe but you do see a knight with a spear.
@@cyqry It's not that the Philippines was poor, in fact it was very rich in Natural resources. Spice is an obvious answer, but also precious metals.
Shit, the reason why Spain decided to stay so long was because they achieved in the Philippines what they couldn't in South America
@@Jim58223 That only applies when there's a market available. But back then, most trades were done by barter around those parts.
PS: that's also how Wootz made its way to Europe
Apparently there was a major shortage of iron and steel in the "Vikings" TV series.
:(
Well, production costs include labor.
I'm no historian, nor weapons scholar -- but my guess is that they used axes BECAUSE THEY COULD. And they were incredibly devastating & unusual & therefore were incredibly intimidating. But that's just a guess. Love the Gimp shirt!
Mamulk jos Long axs Egypten
A Viking era Finnish sword? Me thinks you misspoke.
Ever heard of the Suontaka Sword?
The Faith No More shirt alone deserves a like...plus context.
For me it boils down to two main factors, the first being maintenence where the axe is clearly eaiser to repair compared to the sword and the second being that axes are more terrifying as a weapon compared to a sword. Vikings used psychological warfare to a great extent and often didn't even need to fight to aquire wealth due to their reputation as well... butchers.
Norse iron/steel from that time period, was of lower quality than that found in England or other parts of Europe. It wasnt uncommon for Anglo-Saxon swords to actually break Norse swords in combat, which were more brittle and made of lower quality iron/steel. An axe is generally a lot thicker and harder to break than a sword and if your iron/steel isnt super high quality, then an axe or even spear makes more sense, as its less likely to break in the middle of combat.
Crucible steel also wasnt made in Scandinavia at that time, so the few swords made of high quality steel like an ulfberht, were made from imported crucible steel (some not all were made of crucible steel) and arent representative of the average steel quality found amongst norse nations during that time period. Crucible Steel didnt start becoming more readily available until after 1000 CE. The "Viking" Age was from around 800-1050CE.
I'm not arguing, but lets think about it. Why someone will go viking? Why someone will risk his life traveling by sea, fighting in battles etc.? Sure, some people whats power, some was a profesional raiders, but maybe the bulk of the raiding partys that set sails from Scandinavia was composed from people that are forced to do it, becouse they don't have any money even to buy food. Even if the big majority of the people was rich, there must be a lot of poor souls around. So lets say that the middle class can aford a sword, but what if the social composition of the raiding parties was not 100% middle and upper class? Today laptops are cheap, ALMOST everyone can buy a laptop... but far from EVERYONE even in the richest counries in the word. Lets think about it, if tomorow someone in Norway ask people to form a viking party becouse he found that somwere in the midle of a civil war, there are no laws and they can just do it. Who will be more willing to join? People that can aford to buy laptops or people that can't aford it? I think that there is a big chance that even the majority of the skandinaviance can aford to buy a sword and even the majority of the raiding party is armed with swords, there is big chance that lets say 20-30% of the people willing to go viking are so poor that can aford a sword, just becouse poor people have more reasons to become raiders. Ofcource after the first succesfull ride thay have captured swords and enought money to buy swords... but what if they are not trained to use swoards, becouse thay don't have swords before? It makes sense the if someone know how to use axe anb never touch a sword before will continue to use the axe even when he can aford a sword.
Don't forget that raiding was seasonal, so many could have gone raiding for the extra buck not out of pure need. Also, at least in Icelandic sources (also mentione in law), there was the viking disease, i.e. the fact that quite a lot of people were 'natural' troublemakers that the majority preferred to 'go viking' instead of causing mayhem at home (with the silent hope that those guys would get themselves killed).
@@Segalmed If you doing well at home, why risking your life... Of cource there was a lot hot heads and gready people, but maybe, just maybe, significant percent of the people that go viking REALY needed the money. Seams plausible to me. This cloud explain the bigger proportion of the axes. We know that most of the vikings used swords, just the proportion of the axes was relativly bigger in comparason with nations that have proper armies .
Axes are *MANLY*
Swords are noble.
Spears are reasonable.
Pommels are civilization ending.
So, what are bows then? 😁😁
@@sushanalone Another low-life meme I wish would die off so another more interesting meme could replace it.
If you takr a closer look were the axe was use more than in other areas, you will filn out that these lands are covered by widespread woodlands. So like this the axe finds its way into the dayly life and culture. And for sure, during feuds and fights they will realy soon realize, that an axe is a usefull and devestating weapon. From here it is just one step to specialized fighting axes that are achored in the culture itself...... 😁 what do you think?
Nice shirt Matt!
I believe they used them primarily because of their versatility.
Not only are they excellent fighting implements, but you can also use them for demolition as you mentioned. I believe that this dual purpose is the very reason why the Scandinavians used them so often.
There is the fact that they are also cheaper to produce than swords. But that is a very distant third consideration.
when it comes to swords, vikings even had ULFBERHTs, arguebly the best medieval swords ever made.
axes are really amazing offensively. they pierce armor through momentum, can stun a shield bearer with weak arms and are devestating on impact. swords are more for technical fighting and less for swinging berserkirs, who might not be entirely sober while charging.
You fight with what you've got. Then kill some poor SOB with a nice sword,,,,,,,,, voila! You now have a nice sword.