posted 01-29-2003 05:58 PM            

The key to the Dane axe is mobility---you have got to be able to move, not just stand there hewing ( unless access to your flanks is limited, ie the Stamford Bridge incident ). The Saxon axemen who wreaked such havoc at Hastings did so, we are told, when they moved out from the shield wall into the open, where there was room to maneuver.

So the "figure-8" swings would not be a stolid, static, feet-planted business. The blade comes down right to left, the right hand sliding down the helve, and at the leftmost limit of the swing when the hands are closest the left hands moves up to the head and swings it back up toward the right---you see a lot of Saxons in the Bayeux Tapestry holding their axes seemingly left-handed, which puzzled me until I went and experimented a bit. It's a quick motion, and if the opponent tries to slip into the pattern between swings you step back, or forward, or turn one way or the other, to frustrate his timing.

posted 01-30-2003 02:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin I:
So... question from someone who hasn't studied the axe much. It's got such potential for all these cool binds and such... but how do you get there? From a parry? With the wooden shaft, near your hands? Eek! No thanks.

---

With a daneaxe I usually use the butt end to parry with. Especially when doing full body target fighting this seems to be very effective:

The butt end is quick, and it is not that hard to beat or wind the opponents weapon away and then come through with a powerful cut (preferably done in one movement - if holding your right hand closer to the head, beat the incoming cut to the left and follow through). With a wide grip on the axe changing direction from a cut against the head to a cut against the lower leg can often be done quick enough to go around a shield.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin I:
Is there a way to parry with an axe, or do you just try to pick up the sword after the cut has stopped, during an avoid? I can see doing a parry with a steel-shafted axe, while wearing gauntlets, but not with any kind of wood handled axe, or with exposed fingers just down the shaft.

---

When parrying with an axe it is important that you dont just "stop block" a sword cut, but beat it aside. This often has the advantages that you buy yourself some time and it often places the axe in a position where you can either thrust it into the opponents face or hook his shield (and then thrust into his face...).

I really can't say either way or the other who would win in the original question, basically I think its down to dumb luck if both fighters are more or less equally skilled...

(Actually I think the spearman sneaking up behind the swordsman to first stab the axeman and then the swordsman would win but then again, I've always been fond of the spear =)

/Fredrik

posted 01-30-2003 05:28 AM               

As I said in my earlier post – in my opinion a Dane axe is particularly effective when supported by a good secondary weapon. I maintain that any long axe man worth his salt would have very quick access to a short bladed weapon of some type just in case someone did get inside his reach during combat. This may have been in a loose scabbard at his back, like a back slung scramaseax, or simply tucked into the back of his belt.

I have seen effective use of this many times during combat, the Dane axe man by necessity needs to be in a neutral or forward stance, and even further committed at point of contact - as soon as the axe man is on the back foot and retreating he always appears to be in trouble, his defences seem limited and his blocks appear clumsy and hurried, however, if the axeman keeps his head, blocks, steps through, draws his secondary whilst turning inwards as his opponent commits to a killing strike, the axe man can very often catch his opponent squarely in the side of the ribs or slice his neck with the secondary.

The axe is also effective as a blocking weapon by using the top edge of the blade against your opponents sword or worse his arm. I feel that if you were to catch a swordsman’s arm in this way it should be possible to use enough forward leverage to break and/or dislocate the arm very quickly.

I’ve seen a lot of swordsmen seriously underestimate a good Dane axe man in sparring.

Guy de Boissey

posted 01-30-2003 10:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valnorran:
I would think the axe blade could be used for deflective beats on incoming sword blades.

---

Yep... That too!

de Boissey

posted 02-04-2003 01:56 PM               

Caleb Moore <><

posted 04-27-2003 01:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arundel:
Only if the man with the axe also has another weapon.

Hooking a sheild with an axe renders the axe just as useless as the sheild.

---

Hi Arundel,

posted 04-27-2003 09:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stuart McDermid:
Hi Arundel,

Interesting perspective. Surely one can hook the shield and then stab with the axe?
Even if the axe isn't all that sharp, your opponent has been pulled one way by your hook and then pushed back by your thrust.
Cheers,
Stu.

---

While he's hooking my shield with his axe I will chop his wrist with my sword. That should make it hard to thrust.

posted 04-27-2003 10:46 PM               

When it comes to swords beging used in military services, I'm not sure how accurate it is to definition, (or spelling) but the Bayanet, could in some respects be classified similarily... Also, As mentioned, if you have a shield you are going to have a weapon to back it up, so if you strategically use the shield to disarm, or disorientate your opponent with his axe. You have what ever that back up weapon to use.

On a second note, and new point, depending on size of shield and size of weapon, it may be easier to conceal a weapon, or arsinal behind the shield, so the axemen, won't have an idea what weapon to excpect. The swordsmen has the element of surprize.

I posted a question a while ago, I don't think it was answered. If two people of equil knowlage potential, and equil phisical potential, were to both start training in different weapons, one with Sword, the other with Axe. (of any viriaty, or all viriaties) In a year, if they met in battle, what would be the statistical differences, and who would be favorite to win? Would that statistical difference change if the time was expanded to 5 years? 10 years? to a Life time?

Hey, thanks for the comments, and happy chatting!

Caleb Moore <><

posted 04-28-2003 03:08 PM            

Tomahawks (and indeed bayonets) IMO are the reverse of this: weapons first, tools second.

Just a thought - a khukri probably falls into this category, though in that instance (I don't know) there may be cultural/religious taboos on using them as anything but a weapon.

------------------
"I care little for your Cause; I fight not for your Crown, but for your half-crown, and your handsome women!"

posted 04-28-2003 06:37 PM            

Khukris may be descended from various other forms of forward-curved cutting swords which some theories suggest went east with Alexander the Great's armies; swords like the Greek/Celtiberian/Macedonian/Persian kopis/falcata/machaeria/akinakes, which look like this:

Alternately, they may just be an example of parallel development; but since Macedonia and Thrace are in the Balkans, and the yataghan comes from the Balkans, and the yataghan looks like this:

you have to wonder...

------------------
"I care little for your Cause; I fight not for your Crown, but for your half-crown, and your handsome women!"

posted 04-29-2003 01:17 PM            

However, IMO the yataghan doesn't look that much like any Filipino weapon I can think of - they all have straight or convex cutting edges, while the yataghan is concave. (Again, subject to correction.)

It's also worth remembering - and this I do know about - that the Filpinos repudiate any suggestion of Spanish influence on their weapon-in-each-hand martial arts (the suggestion being that it derived from Spanish-school rapier and dagger play) and I know the Spanish reached the Philippines. Of course, national-pride repudiation is not the same as "true".

As regards Alexander and Nepal, his armies certainly reached Northern India. That's a matter of historical record. In 327 BC they crossed the Hindu Kush (the western spur of the Himalayas and descended into the Indus valley. That's close enough to Nepal for me to give the falcata-as-khukri-ancestor theory some very serious consideration.

posted 06-07-2003 09:54 PM               

Since there's no shield I assume we're talking about going two-handed. I love axes and pole weapons, but the idea of going against 4 or 5 feet of razor sharp metal without a bit of covering sounds terrifying... of course, without hand protection, it'd be harder for the swordsman to grab his own blade and do all the tricks he'd like to do... but still, I'd put my money on the swordsman, though the differance would be small...

posted 06-17-2003 08:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walther:
The guy with the big Dane axe is at a disadvantage. It has been mentioned but forgotten, wooden shafts are breakable. So your opponent with the sword and shield would do his utmost to break the shaft, with a good chance of success.. this has been mentioned in saga’s often enough. And if he succeeds, you are unarmed. And who has said that you can’t parry or even block a Dane axe. Don’t block the axe head, but block the wooden shaft just behind the metal head . The closer you can get to your opponents hands the better. It is not just the force of the bow that makes a Dane axe so fearsome, but the combination of force and the metal axe head. Without the axe head hitting you, the blow of a Dane axe is just like the blow of a quarter staff, painful if it hits you, but no problem to block with a shield.

---

Your problem is getting close enough to deliver a blow powerful enough to cut the shaft without getting cleft in twain, believe me a good Dane-axe man is at no disadvantage, I'm not saying he'd always win but the Dane-axe inflicted utter panic in those who had to face it. It was an extremely effective weapon