That's a description from the battle of Lincoln (1141), so a bit after the Viking Age, but it clearly shows that both axes and swords may be broken during melee: " At length through the number of the blows, the king's battle-axe was broken asunder. Instantly, with his right hand, drawing his sword, well worthy of a king, he marvellously waged the combat, until the sword as well was broken asunder." (The battle-axe here is, as I understand, a main weapon, probably two-handed dane-axe.)
I would think a king could afford a better-than-average sword . So if the sword of a king could shatter, how much more often did average-quality swords break?
@@davidhawley3337 It is possible that the king had better armour (+bodyguards) and better morale and physicue than an average soldier, so he was able to fight longer and fiercer, and his axe and sword had more chances to break.
@@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ Honestly, there's so many "what if" caveats both for and against that I think it makes sense to presume that these factors largely cancel each other out and that we should mainly focus on the things we can say for certain instead.
That is a good point about axes lasting generations. When I was 17, in 1983, my dad inherited the HEAVY axe of my grandfather. He had used it in the Forestry on Great Barrier Island before the first world war. It had subsequently been used as the fire-wood axe at his home up on the mainland, and was virtually as good as new because he didn't knock it about. The handle is still the same handle since at least the first time I saw it being used, and was taught to split wood with it, when I was about 13. I own it now, and it is virtually unchanged in all those years.
I think you also have the benefit that if your axe breaks the point of failure probably will be the shaft - and a broken shaft can be replaced far more easily than a broken sword can be repaired or otherwise fixed (if its even still in a condition that is possible to fix at all). To me that would be another point in favor of the axe along the same lines you've given. (looking further I do see some other folks mentioning this as well)
Another fact, is that iron made in Scandinavia was primeraly bog iron, which has a lot of impurities. Meaning steel suited for swords, was rarer. People seem to forget that viking age steel, wasnt usually very high quality or even steel. Its was usually mild steel or a weapon was some steel and some iron. It actually says kn sources from the time, that vikings loced steel from places like france, because they made better steel.
The Norse traded mostly for swords. Until it became forbidden to trade swords with them in some kingdoms. The best sworfs were Frankish and they got their steel from India via mid-east.
They often folded the iron when making blades, which helped get rid of impurities. Case hardening with bone was frequently done, which can make a pretty good layer up to 3mm deep. But of course, they sourced iron from France, and indeed everywhere they could.
In general steel was really expensive. It's the most important reason why armour was usually limited to mail and often not even that. So a weapon that uses less steel is just much cheaper. Nowadays steel is reduced so much in price that we can make buildings out of it (which would have been completely unafordable even for the richest of kings for most of history, while nowadays steel shacks are used by the poorest of people), but back in the day axes would be much cheaper, simply because there's so much less steel needed.
As for the delicacy of swords, you are right, that is why, unfortunately, today we have a lot of old, more ornate sabers, worn with elegant clothes, but few combat sabers used in battles. Apparently they lasted on average only 2-3 years of war use.
@@korosuke1788 The problem is whether the cheaper ones will suddenly break mid-battle. I remember a discussion where one guy said that statistically, an anti-tank gun could only fire 10 or 20 times on the battlefield because it was quickly detected and destroyed. Therefore - he asked - why was the barrel designed to withstand many thousands of shots? The second guy told him that it was difficult to design a barrel to withstand 20 or 50 shots. Either you make it right and it will last for many thousands, or it will suddenly break after the first, second or fifth shot. Probably a similar problem also concerned, to some extent, swords.
The durability is probably why you see so many high status axes, with silver inlays in Scandinavian Viking age archaeology. The fighting dude who could afford a sword also knew the benefits of the axe, so he brought an axe for the mele (together with a sword)
The Northmen were first and foremost steel/iron tool users adept at crafting wood evidenced by the beauty and efficiency of their ships. They and their smiths were accustomed to forging bladed tools. As a practical matter, given the material, most local smiths with a helper could fashion an effective fighting ax in a day. On the other hand swords, before the Middle Ages, required a teem to produce and more time and material. Thinking about typical groups of men wandering around away from home one would expect them to have some kind of small ax handy for simple chores anyway. So, unless one is rich or heroic in stature, it is expected that a handy ax would be the default weapon when the spear is not available.
Weapon axes are not really advisable as tool axes. The weights, balance, edge bevels, and so on are all quite different, and you do not want your weapon dulled from chopping wood. Matt has also previously addressed that the price of swords relative to axes is routinely overstated.
@@NevisYsbryd I had a cold steel Viking axe (not the Dane axe and not the Norse tomahawk) I thought it was a pretty good design for either. You can reforge an axe easier than forging a sword.
That was not my point at all. The separation between tools and weapons is less than you seem to imagine. The were not professional warriors but guys that left their farms and their fishing villages and lumber yards and went looking for space in lands that were not claimed by kith and kin. The weapons they had were often forged locally. The famous and successful often had very pretty and sophisticated weapons but the run of the mill took what was available. Don't forget that the same guys that sailed the ships and crewed the ships were also the guys that built them. The current period often makes distinctions in material things that were not available in other times.@@NevisYsbryd
Can you provide any sources for your statements? Such as the Northmen being first at what u said? Because I really doubt it. Nothing against you btw, I just disagree with the statements presented.
separate comment fot this: i feel like, in the general understanding of the topic, people don't realize that weapons were a disposable thing. especially in war, i'm saying. i can also imagine that after a battle, scavengers would go to the battlefield and collect the broken weapons to be sold and considered part of the loot. what we have in the museums now probably didn't see that much of a combat, or simply was too pretty to waste, a side arm of a noble or a wealthy person. we tend to forget how many people would protect said person in life and war back in the day. i wonder how many nails or tools were forged out of broken swords, like, today we see people forging a knife or even a seax out of a file... humans, crafty people we are...
And you need a hatchet anyway, for firewood or build a shelter from the rain. So a hatchet is one of your first tools you learn how to use for protection. In a time with less protection by the law, your parents sure taught you how to use what you've got to save your self and the family.
Love this content, as Usual Matt Easton is a legend when it comes to actual facts. I also love the focus on Axe's reliability, now my fictional dwarves can brag about this specific argument when discussing their heirloom superiority :D
2 main benefits of an axe for a viking: 1) It's cheaper, possibly "free" in that you already needed it for the carpentry of building the ship. 2) Vikings would have years of practice swinging axes, including for building the ships. (Unlike French squires who were trained with swords from an early age.)
In some urban incidents where knives were used in assaults, the victim was able to escape, or even seriously assault the attacker, after being seriously, even fatally stabbed. That suggests that cuts and chops might be very significant in battle because a properly placed cut or chop is more likely to be immediately disabling.
Well yeah. Being stabbed doesn't usually hurt until you realize you've been stabbed. Chopping attacks are a force and losing the ability to use your limbs due to slicing or chopping changes self defense into panic. (disclosure: I've never been stabbed.....my adoptive mother was stabbed over 20 times, according to her, and she said it just felt like someone weakly punching her) That was long before I was adopted.
@@Thulgore I had been thinking about the subject in conjunction with the fact that cutting swords grow in use from the 17th century or earlier in many military contexts. Then in the early 20th and final moments of the 19th centuries, thrust centric swords become fashionable(?) again. They are optimized for use in prolonged CQC. The foot soldiers carry some fairly nasty CQC weapons. A friend of mine has a trench knife from WW I US military. The blade is triangular, simply for stabbing, and the hilt is brass knuckles with spikes on each of the finger bows. So, the designer assumed very close combat, face to face.
During an argument about why she hadn't done something that was one of her agreed duties, I have been stabbed, by a woman who luckily didn't know what she was doing. I took the knife off her and she ran out of the house and left me there, and only then I noticed that she had stuck it into me twice. The only reason I didn't die is because I was 15 minutes ambulance ride away from a hospital. It hurt a bit, but not as much as some of my sports injuries, and though I am known for being extremely stoic I was in enough pain after about 2 minutes, that I FELT like it was a fatal injury. What was worse was, I also had a sickening washing out feeling, like I was dissolving, and got progressively weaker and more "I am weak as a kitten, I can't get comfortable, I feel bad, this is BAD" way. It wasn't in an immediately fatal place, and the kitchen knife was razor sharp and thin so I didn't feel it. If she had known to stick it in and turn the blade though, I would have been dead for all money, I was assured by the young Doctor. About 2 YEARS later she was finally convicted . . . had only spent 8 days inside before the court granted her bail and home detention until the trail, AND name suppression until the conviction, and then she got an 11 month suspended sentence and "Bound over to good behaviour" by the court. If I had stabbed her, and run away without letting anyone know, and denied it right up until days before the trial, I would have got 12 years, and what is more, I would CERTAINLY have been in prison the entire time before the trial. At least she was convicted, and had to carry a conviction for a decade, which shows up on your police record if you, say, stab a shopkeeper in an argument about damaged goods . . . she she did.
@@uncletiggermclaren7592 She was definitely a nutcase. And should have been in prison much longer. Also detention under a hospital order. She seems aside from anger issues, not to be good in the head.
Another small point regarding when you get into the melee. If youre swinging around 3 feet of sharp steel and your buddy next to you is ALSO swinging around 3 feet of sharp steel you suddenly have a lot more steel to worry about. Because melees were loud, tight and chaotic messes having a weapon that would hurt who you wanted but NOT cause accidental damage would be a plus. Like you said, swords are dangerous from point to hilt and even accidental contact can cause great harm. But with an ax, while sure you MIGHT bonk your mate while maneuvering it, youre not swinging it so the blow is largely incidental. The chances of friendly fire are vastly greater with a sword. Might not be a big reason but it probably only takes stabbing a friendly once because one of you got shoved to make you reconsider weapon choice.
Love'd the vid. I have to admit i never really thought about the shield being used to block the sword when i thought about sword vs axe scenarios and a simple shield i can imagine anyone could've made and carried back in the viking age. I always imagined trying to block a sword with your axe and how it would damage the handle, but you got the shield for that.
I would add that a short axe is much better suited for melee type CQC than most swords. Gladius and possibly cutlass would be exceptions to that. In fact tomahawks (short axes basically) and trench shovels were used in CQC well into the 20th century.
When you look at the full range of axes and hatchets that were used in Northern Europe for wood working, ship building and tree felling--before steel reached the quality that caused the saw to replace many of the styles of axe--there were types of wood working axe that closely resembled the various types of battle axe. My point is that most blacksmiths had considerable experience of making something not too different to a battle axe--and much of the male population had some skill in using at least three or four types of axe. What we know of as a axe nowadays--is the tree felling axe, and the firewood splitting axe--neither of which resemble a battle axe at all.
One other advantage Axe's have over swords is that they require far less time to sharpen, spending 10- 20min with an axe stone vs 2 hrs to sharpen a whole sword can mean a lot of man-hours gained for an army or warband. A sword also has more steel to rust and so requires more general maintenance. You can replace a axe haft with just about any straight branch with some whittling, especially when the axe head is just slid on and friction locked as they historically were (as opposed to the modern wedge/key technique that is used these days, but even that could be done with fairly minimal tools required), forests were far more common during this period and even sub-par wood could be used if required without too much lost to the axe effectiveness.
Axe can be more easily "adjusted" this way, too, for wielder or circumstance, than a sword. Haft a bit longer, shorter, thicker, thinner, grip improved or replaced. Wondered how often that happened, but you're less likely to need a smithy like you often would with a sword.
You can absolutely re-haft an axe with green wood from tree branches, but you wouldn't want to unless you have no alternative. Green wood is too soft and springy and won't last long with heavy use, it gets weaker with use. Ideally you want hardwood that has been seasoned: kept in the dry for a few months.
@@4d4m22 Very true, but not where I was going; totally agree that green wood would be a bad choice, I've fit axes before. My operating thought would be swapped with seasoned wood, though it makes for an interesting question of did they possibly carry spares when traveling, was decent wood possibly "recycled" from broken oars or heavy spearshafts, things like that. Even in re-enacting we tend to have to tweak or even rebuild gear, often wonder about the historic methodologies that preceded us.
@@Lorfanatic Ah right yes I agree. I’m sure there would have been spare hafts carried around on occasion. Maybe generic ones that could be made to fit a variety of weapons with a small amount of fettling. And it makes total sense to repurpose oars and the like if necessary.
sounds a lot like the revolvers vs autoloading pistol debate in the firearm communities. when carrying a gun for self defense, the revolvers are more limited than autoloaders due to thier high trigger weight and low capacity. but many of the arguments revolve (funny pun) around revolvers being more reliable and less likely to jam or cause a shooter induced malfunction. its funny to see the same discussion and thoughts were had back throughout history.
Metallurgy is a complex art. I have seen how much it has advanced in the automotive and combat vehicle industry. The things they did with what they had to work with are pretty impressive. The size of the armies they had to outfit also probably affected quality.
Plus the axe is easier to create/make. I do like a good sword, and I own a few. But, if I had to go into combat with an edged weapon. I'd use one of the many axes I own to take into combat. And I'm not talking tree chopping axes. I have also built a period correct shield. Good video.
As a viking I would like to have axe even if I have good sword. It is irreplaceble as a tool when camping uotdoors and for small repairs. And I agree, it is probably easier to hurt guy with good chainmail using axe then sword. Even Romans used pickaxe (dolabra) against heavily armored enemies.
According to the Norwegian sagas, most kept their battle axes still after acquiring a sword as it were useful and really didn't take much room on the gear
Though I essentially agree with your assesment of the cutting capability of that model of rapier. As an Ophtalmologist I must caution you that I gave eye medical care to two fellow starting theater actors who were fooling around with a similar model without eye protection and through a quick small upward move (not even a thurst) managed to split the other one's eye in half, loosing all eye content ending up in evisceration at the surgery room and prosthetic rehabilitation.. so I would say "cutting potential" would depend on the structure being "cut" and how the slice Is done (sharp tip of the blade)...
Awesome video Matt! Another few pros of the axe are they are good for hooking and binding up spears. The leverage they give along with hooking means you can disarm opponents with correct timing and techniques. When attacking a shield if the opponent stops the blow on the haft with the edge of the shield the head of the axe may still hit in the arm or head around the shield due to the head passing further behind the shield face than the haft. The second axe you showed, or any with a pronounced horn can be used to thrust. I like to hook a shield wait untill they resist and thrust to the face or body. Might not kill but a wound none the less. Axe is also a good back up to a sword or one handed spear to, if you loose a shield you can hold an axe in your left hand and use it defencively. If the haft breaks you can hold the axe under the blade as a kind of improvised punching weapon if enough of the haft is left. You can also hook opponents bodies, distrupt their structure so one of your battle brothers can get a spear in. Amazing weapons really. I love axes 😂❤ Thanks Matt you are speaking my language😊
Hey Matt, some of my thoughts also came around to campaigning /raiding in that era.. I believe an axe was also far easier to maintain in good shape than a sword.. or even to repair it. An Axe shaft can be made by only even a good knife in the worst case, while a sword requires tools or even a forge. I imagine troops being on a longer campaign far from base, fighting various skirmishes in a row.. really no time to sharpen long sword blades, repair pommels etc.. an axe must have been so much easier to keep in "battle shape"
Appreciate the comments on the material construction. Theory is great, but noting that some weapons (swords in this case) have disadvantages is a critical point that is often ignored.
Plus axes required overall less iron/steel and were easier to produce and repair. A broken sword requires specialised tools and a skilled craftsman to repair. A broke axe handle can be replaced with the most basic of tools.
I have seen few swords broken over shield boss, lost one this way too. But axes too can be broke this way, mostly in the narrowest part. Everything I have seen was a modern steel of course, but in the crafting process, defects can be introduced even today. I wonder about hand protection in this time period. With axe you have almost no protection and hand is extremly vulnerable. When weapon is lost, you can rearm yourself, when hand is lost, you are done.
Regarding hand protection, it's also fair to say that swords of this period have very little hand protection. It's better than an axe, but very minimal compared to later swords.
I've always loved axes, but I think comparing them directly to swords is more complex than average viewers and users might realise, and I don't want to overshadow the fact that people went to great cost and effort to have swords in most cases.
Even a linen coat was some protection against a sword blade. would be interesting to hear you discuss sword & shield attack targets & spacing vs Axe & Shield targets & spacing.
One thing I'm a bit curious about, given the attack movement made with axes... I wonder if they are more likely than other weapons to dig in and get stuck in the target. I wouldn't expect that to happen fast with the smaller axe, but with a bigger blade and more force...
The thin pre-viking and viking period swords had extraordinary cutting capability but even the best quality swords were relatively fragile, this is also a reason for the use of lang-sax heavier but much more resistant with a thicker back.
Ohh you hitting the axehead onto the wooden shield makes a nice sound like a drum. Thats very fascinating. So it is like a musical instrument. Now I understand that this can be used before engaging in battle to fire up the morale and intimidate the enemy, no? :) Cheeres.
My intuitive understanding of axe's their popularity throughout the ages (outside of your durability argument, which I find very compelling, given that wooden shafts arent nearly as lacking in durability as people assume, granted the reality that you never get to hit the shaft as if its locked against a surface, its not at all like splitting wood which I imagine people equate it to somewhat): With axe -> Hit anything -> Satisfying results OR axe breaks, need better axe (Almost no maintenance required, easier to make en masse). Not to mention doors (nasty things that seperate vikings from their loot) and axes go together like cheese and wine. With sword -> Hit anything that is person like -> Mixed results, need axe. (Too dependent on factors like alloy qualities available, smithing technique, and maintenance) With mace -> Hit it and it goes down, but shields get in your way too much until armour overtook the need (or popularity) of shields. I'm somewhat joking of course, but at the same time I believe there's some truth to that line of thought. Production and availability of course played a major role in all this as well. Not nearly as fancy as a sword of course, so if corpses and broken down doors were your thing, axes, if flair and art like mastery was your thing, swords we go! None of which is as fancy as that pole-axe you have in the back there I do play favourites.
huhuh i just recalled when as a kid i asked my uncle why a particular tool that looks like a warhammer is locally called "malepeggio" or in english literally "badworse". he's like "because this side hurts, this side hurts more". ooooook.🤣
you could easily carry both the small axe and the sword you showed as a backup to a spear, sword on your left side so you draw it traditionally and axe on the right maybe just stuffed under a belt with the head holding onto it. same would allso be possible with a bigger axe and a seax. The seax and the small axe are both very usefull as tools and dont have to be carried as a weapon but can be used as one if needed while the bigger axe and the sword are dedicated for fighting.
"stress riser" sounds so innocent. It can easily rise the stress by a factor of 5 or more - especially if it´s a sharp crack. As toolmaker we did not use sharp hard pencils to mark aluminium for that reason. It cause quick failure. Hitting with the heel of the axe can damage it. The eye was usually not hardened and could be deformed by hitting a hard object. And lastly: Axes for woodwork were not overbuilt. They were built for the purpose. Some needed momentum and all needed to withstand hard hits against objects with little give. From a fighters perspective they are without a doubt too heavy though.
You finally got to it at the end. I don't think they're more durable, but you can replace an axe handle cheaper and easier than fix your blade. Durability, we could argue about, but I can go cut down a tree today. I don't yet own a forge and anvil. Though, it's on my list!
Well said, but I want to add that a good smith could weld a small but high quality strip of steel into a wrought iron body and have a perfectly workable weapon. The advantage to that is wrought iron isn't likely to snap, especially given the stresses vs geometry. The edge might shatter, sure, but as Matt said, then you still have a mace. As for the handle, remember that nobody's going to slice through it, given that it will be free to move. The difference here is that, as Matt said, a notch could set up a catastrophic failure. A wooden shaft that gets notched has been damaged a bit, but will be structurally sound if it got hit again. Or to put it another way, you can fracture steel, but wood can't fracture due to it being a dense pack of fibers. Not coming at you, this is conversational, and I hope interesting, too.
@bookman7409 Yeah, it totally depends on the quality of forgery, to the quality of wood. Now, I've seen swords break in shows like Forged in Fire. I've only broken one of my swords, but it was a weakness at the hilt. I've broken several axes. Now, I chop wood way more than play with swords. So, that could be observation bias.
7:16 It's great to hear someone not use French, but in English, that'd just be byrne, likely without the "ee" sound at the end. There's a lot of words from old english that could be used. One of the ones I like the most is "wælhlence" with "wæl" being a sadly lost word for "slaughter", and "hlence" giving us modern "link" ^^
I have often wondered how they would deal with chips and cracks, did they just discard them or were repairs attempted. Do we have any examples of swords like that?
There are several swords that looks like they are shortened, if only the tip is broken and at least one in Finland with blade markings disfigured and in new the tang. That one seems to have broken near the handle.
Thank you tp everyone for the replies, I know nothing about western stuff, (and only slightly more about Japanese stuff) so it is wonderful to be able to learn more. It's nice to know that when somebody broke my favourite bokken years ago and I made it into a wooden wakazashi and tanto that I was being historically accurate. I just thought that I was being a skinflint!!
Without reading all 100 comments, there is another element to the axe's durability. The wooden haft is more likely to fail and replacing that is cheap and simple. The head is more likely to survive and if the blade gets bent a little, easily repaired as well.
I like to think of the sword as "a battlefield scalpel", personally I'm of the opinion that it was for the most part (during this period) it might have been more of a prestigious secondary weapon. Marking out men of higher social standing with elite training etc. much like the use of a military side arm (handgun) has been seen and used in different contexts over time throughout more recent history. (Once again, please consider the above mentioned as purely my own outlook on the matter).
Unless I missed it I would assume an axe, especially a small one, would be much cheaper than a sword. That's likely a pretty important factor too. Better to have a cheaper sidearm than none at all.
Richer vikings were in the sagas known to look rep their battle axes on their fighting gear still after getting a sword as well, and often favered using the axe over the sword. So in a battle one had more backups options: Spear --> axe --> sword -->sax.
I'd love for you to delve further into the Ulfberht sword because I still don't understand it. (I get how it was amazing.......don't understand the history)
Huge fan sir! I wanted to ask you, here and among others, if there is any historical record of the cost difference between and axe and a sword of this period? To keep argument or debate to a minimum, say going with an loosely "average" cost and quality for either for the time?
It would be cool with a drawing of secondary weapon video. Like, what secondary weapons can be drawn fast enough to make a difference if someone gets within your spear reach? If any. Are there some that will be easier to draw and sheath wothout looking? While moving? Etc
Would a viking warrior have an extra shield with them during a battle? What would you do if your shield suddenly breaks or it's pulled away from you? Pick up a dead warriors shield and fight with it?
It takes surprisingly much to actually break a shield. And even a heavily damaged shield will remain functional for a very long time. Skalagrim did a great video on it about 8 years ago. Search UA-cam for: "Skallagrim plywood shield vs broadsword". And yes, of course you would pick up another shield/sword/axe when yours fails.
In battle you do whatever it takes to survive. I'm sure the more experienced fighters would keep an eye for usable weapons and shields on the battlefield as backups.
The Roman Swordsman belonged to an empire rich enough to feed and train him well and armor him. Gladiatorial games displayed the exact techniques required and the typical legionnaire was a superbly healthy, fit, and motivated killer. I am surprised Rome ever lost. That same empire could also afford to repeatedly replace his short sword if it was judged too badly damaged after battles. They were about the only soldiers in history to rely on the sword. Everyone else used a spear as the primary weapon. Everyone else using swords were essentially a tiny minority not doing much but chopping up fleeing soldiers or slaughtering peasants. We identify the sword with rank and aristocracy while it was the spear, the knife, pole arms, and axes not much different than my boys axe that were actually carried in numbers.
Plenty of period axes in fact do have very delicate, thin "sword like" blades too, though. And can have pretty long blades/beard that could be very prone too damage. Many indeed had pretty stout, short axeheads that would handle stresses better, but still plenty of daneaxes in particular have blades only few milimeters thick all the way. Then there's something like Poznań-Luboń axe that is thin, and has long, slender beard that would likely bend rather easily.
Certainly some period axes have pretty thin and delicate blades compared to other axes, but they are not prone to failure in the same way as a sword blade can completely break - if you loose a piece of an axe blade, you still have a functional weapon in your hand generally.
@@scholagladiatoria Thinking about this, mentioned Luboń axe has pretty solid hammer part on it's opposite side, despite being 11th century, like quite many Western Slavic axes, so maybe it was there precisely to have something more stout, among other reasons.
While it's perhaps outside the scope of the video - if we're looking at a sword vs. an axe in a secondary role, I'd imagine the axe would also exceed in "non-combat" use. On the trail, on the march, making camp, etc. An axe is a much more useful tool generally speaking for all the non-fighting stuff you'd be doing as well.
I think one of the biggest advantages to an axe is, back in those days, as a normal "civilian" (peasant, villain, etc) you grew up using an axe. Cutting firewood, housing, lopping off a chicken's head. Everyone felt comfortable with an axe. I grew up as a logger, started at 13, and while we used chainsaws, we still used axes. We heated our house (in northern california) with firewood that had to be split which I did since I was 7 years old. If you offered me a sword or an axe for combat right now, I would choose an axe. I know how to use those, spent my whole life with one. I don't know how to use a sword. When I go hunting, I carry a hatchet, in my rig I carry a two handed axe. I always have an axe because they're simple and easy for me to use because I grew up with them in my hand(s)
I love Ibn Fadlan description of the viking swords he witnessed and their description might have lent that they were Ulfbert swords, he said "swords of the frankish style" yes that's an open ended label but I can dig the idea given the time period and the Volga trade route
Another side weapon briefly mentioned is the Seax & the longer scramaseax. The Scramaseax would go onto form the early falchions in sword development all of Celtic & Germanic origin. Mind how long is seax till it is considered a sword & not a knife?
Besides durability I say the main advantages of an axe is cheap, power & it's intuitive as it requires little to no training from deign for whack then with the heavy sharp end. I'd also argue axes are a semi impact bludgeoning weapon against armour for even maille will counteract much of a early swords advantages like the Carolingian-Norse sort you showed. Really axe or 1 handed doubled edged swords is preference & familiarity. I have used hatchets & large knifes similar to seax's far more then a double edged sword so the 2 former would be my preference. I know English staff-polearms & bayonet training as well as knife combat far more then swords which I suspect was more commonly known in history before firearms supplanted the lot eventually. I hunted since 5 & I know knifes, axes, hatchets & rifles like the back of my hand so when would I want a sword that has no real function as a tool or hunting weapon? I spared with sabre, rapier, tucks long swords & similar but would I pick them over what I know, no! I'm pretty poor with a bow compared to my brother so even of pre gun powder missiles I'd favour a crossbow, javelin or even a sling as I played with the latter a lot as a nipper. People use what they know & have on hand as it is that simple. Besides knight or nobles etcetera how long do you really think the ordinary person in history spent training in combat much less with a sword that cost 10 oxen or 20 silver shillings in William the conquers day? How much a sword was earlier then the 11th century I have no idea but it was likely more then 10 oxen which fvck that.
@@stonedog5547 Take the following lengths as very rough estimates: *Short-saex=Seaxes (7-14''/15” length blade) *Hand-saex=Hadseax (14/15'' - 19/20” length blade) *Langseaxes (19/20/21” to long 31/32' blade *Scramaaex (31/32 +) largest find I have seen was just over 43 inch blade with a 2 handed handle of 8 inches. so 51/52 inches total in length. Their could be longer Scramasaex but I Have no idea? lang or langr is just 'long' in Germanic & Norse. Skráma in Norse means skramme in Norwegian meaning a scratch/scar. Some shorter scramasaex are one handed with a over lengthened handle you could easily enough use them with 2 hands or 1 hand though not nimble being kind of a bastard saex like a bastard sword sort of. The types discussed are likely called such not because of the length but how the blade handles. Some blade are narrower or broader giving cut at cost of reach & vice versa. Mass distribution is a thing in weapons. Besides tip & handle typology in seax's this should explain most of the matter.
@@stonedog5547 I should clarify that only the bone, antler & horn handles have survived semi-intact as the wood handles of saex with rare exception seem to last. The handles are often longer then the tang I can't give proximate lengths for handles & tangs for in weapon's or tool's construction it is finicky thing to recreate in a forge as a lot of it is guess work or working backward at best.
Dunno if its my shitty phone or not but the sound was a bit "whitenosie"-y, thought you ought to know if its on your end. Anyhow, great video, keep on keeping up Matt, cheers!
I have a small bearded axe with just under four inches of edge and a head less then six inches from the back of the eye to the edge, on a handle about a cubit long (so an average tomahawk/beltaxe size)..... It weighs 17oz
At least two times that i can remember from the saga`s i have read, the first thing that happen in this cases when they got a sword as a gift, was to try the sword on something hard to see if it was a good sword or not.
Can anyone tell me what Matt is referring to at 11:16, where he says that modern steel is more reliable than anything from that period apart from...a "Northbert"? Wat that?
People almost never bring up that almost every child probably had experience with an axe and distance with it. This is experience. This means a lot. Spears were used for hunting. Axes were used by everyone. They serve so many purposes......and can be honed to provide different "utilitarian" needs as needed.
In reenactment, I got him a lot of grief, for the fact that I would use a sword, and what would be qualified as a chopping or falling ask as the sword in my main hand, the following acts in my offhand, and could in joules or in combat, do damage to my opponent I was second rank so I wasn’t or did not need a shield and I used a spear from time to time they did not like it because I could see their moves and their body position for attack and I agree with you that it was a primary tool/weapon
I've never so far seen any mention by anyone - that the popularity of spears/axes might be at least partially - because for any given volume of iron/steel, more spears or axe heads could be produced per kg of metal than if they were made into swords. Temper might be important to stop a sword blade from fracturing after repeat concussive blows especially with the possibly spotty heat treatment used by commonplace smiths who might have made more ploughshares or scythes than swords. But high quality heat treatment might have been less vital in the shorter stubbier shapes of spear/axe heads? Given say 3kg of steel how many swords of the type used at the time could that produce? As opposed to hand axes or spears? I wonder if maybe three times more weapons might be producible if they weren't swords? A spear doesn't need a blade of the sword-size shown here to be a terrifyingly effective killing device. Nor yet an axe - check the end of Henry de Bohun in 1314! So - was "Economics of steel" a factor? If a lord had to arm a raiding party or a small army, perhaps it might have been?
What about more choppy blades like a type 2 falchion, would they have the same durability issues? I know it isn't related to viking era weapons, but just to expand on the topic.
Particularly on a campaign with multiple battles it might be a good idea to keep an axe back at camp to use once your sword has taken too much damage. Not many people would be able to afford spare swords, but a spare axe is easily affordable for a swordsman.
Ax was a tool everybody had, so a normal wood ax was one of the first tools you learned to fight with for self protection. And a spear was used for hunting, something most people had and learned early on to use. So if you were a young ambitious, but not wealthy, man you took whatever you've got and was used to, when you first joined a journey. And you need an ax on your journey anyway, for cutting wood. I guess that ax would been carried as a second backup even if you had a sword. If you had money or someone sponsered you you might could afford more specialiced weapons and learned to fight with them, but for the common man they had to take what they've got. Even if you later in life get money to buy a sword or a battle ax, you have to relly on the skills you've learned early on. Are you going for a new skillset of sword fighting or are you upgrading your ax fighting? I think there is more to it than the objective pros and cons of the weapons. If you were a rich mans son, you start learning sword fighting early on. The farm may even had a small army of 5-10 men for protection, with skilled professionals. If you were a pagans son, probably noone in your family own a sword, nor was very skilled to use it. But your father could teach you how to swing an ax. Agains wood and enemies.
I was wondering about the use of falcatas, and how they seemed to had been made very durable by Hannibals armies. I wonder if this aided the use of the blade, and then also comparable to axes in heft and weight, given that a larger mass of the weapon is at the end than on typical one handed swords, as well as the forward curve providing more weight distribution towards the blade end.
And the cost and oportunity to find an axe is clearly better than a sword. I mean, even in XX century in some rural countries, there were towns with their own blacksmiths, and most of them have small forges and only tools to make the axe heads (yes back in days they punch the steel into head molds). And i really doubt about a rural blacksmith doing a sword with tiny forge and only a bunch of wood or carbon-wood. So, for most warbands axe was the answer, Cheaper/Stronger/Easier/Numbers.
I think the traditional Scandinavian bearded axe should have been discussed in the context of this video. The capability to disarm a sword wielding opponents with a bearded axe, and bend or break a sword, gave the axe wielder a key advantage in battle.
Probably one of the reasons many preferred axes before swords, even if they could afford it. With all the highly decorated axes that's been found with silver and gold inlay and so on.
It has been said that all bladesmiths ae blacksmiths, but not all blacksmiths are bladesmiths. Bladesmiths are specialists. They have to know more about the iron and steel, particularly high carbon steel. While a blacksmith may know a bit about high carbon steel, their knowledge is not as extensive and they are not likely to have the experience in crafting a long, thin high carbon sword blade. They may craft a knife, but the length of a sword blade increases the stress AND the failure points relative to a knife, much less an axe. While a sword will likely use a 1075 to 1095 steel, an axe steel may range from 1050 to 1075. As such a bladesmith may be available at or near a Norseman's home, they will certainly not have one available when they go viking. At best, they may have a blacksmith that can repair knives and axes, possibly even make one if he has the materials and the time. That makes the ax much more dependable when viking. It also helps that an ax doubles as a tool. While a viking nobleman might have a sword, you can bet he also has an ax handy.
I wonder if the axe is more reliable against someone wearing thick winter clothing. Especially when fighting an uncooperative opponent where it's difficult to land a perfect blow
Could you do a test of over striking the axe vs chopping with a sword even a crap sword I think you will be surprised at how easily an over strike with an axe will snap the head off the handle. Please prove me wrong. Ps absolutely love your videos
Good plan! Take a couple of modern built swords and you’d make a fortune. Even a low end modern sword would probably be better than what they had back in the day. Happy time traveling! 😁
That's a description from the battle of Lincoln (1141), so a bit after the Viking Age, but it clearly shows that both axes and swords may be broken during melee: " At length through the number of the blows, the king's battle-axe was broken asunder. Instantly, with his right hand, drawing his sword, well worthy of a king, he marvellously waged the combat, until the sword as well was broken asunder." (The battle-axe here is, as I understand, a main weapon, probably two-handed dane-axe.)
That's very cool, I'll have to look up that quote. It contains a lot of information to unpack.
I would think a king could afford a better-than-average sword . So if the sword of a king could shatter, how much more often did average-quality swords break?
@@davidhawley3337 It is possible that the king had better armour (+bodyguards) and better morale and physicue than an average soldier, so he was able to fight longer and fiercer, and his axe and sword had more chances to break.
@@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ Honestly, there's so many "what if" caveats both for and against that I think it makes sense to presume that these factors largely cancel each other out and that we should mainly focus on the things we can say for certain instead.
@davidhawley3337 the steel and the blacksmithing processes sucked compared to steel we have now.
Richard the Lion Heart even preferred his large axe over his sword after he had a sword break in combat.
That is a good point about axes lasting generations. When I was 17, in 1983, my dad inherited the HEAVY axe of my grandfather. He had used it in the Forestry on Great Barrier Island before the first world war. It had subsequently been used as the fire-wood axe at his home up on the mainland, and was virtually as good as new because he didn't knock it about. The handle is still the same handle since at least the first time I saw it being used, and was taught to split wood with it, when I was about 13.
I own it now, and it is virtually unchanged in all those years.
"It has had a few handles and maybe a new head but it is still my grandfathers axe."
Cheers!
that wrap eye axe was surprisingly difficult to make. the forge welding was tricky.
The eye is made by piercing 😊
@@SURVIVOR-og6dl not on the one i made for matt in the video . its made via the wrap eye method
I think you also have the benefit that if your axe breaks the point of failure probably will be the shaft - and a broken shaft can be replaced far more easily than a broken sword can be repaired or otherwise fixed (if its even still in a condition that is possible to fix at all). To me that would be another point in favor of the axe along the same lines you've given. (looking further I do see some other folks mentioning this as well)
Yeah. And you can use a spear shaft too if you are unexperienced and need more distance.
Another fact, is that iron made in Scandinavia was primeraly bog iron, which has a lot of impurities. Meaning steel suited for swords, was rarer. People seem to forget that viking age steel, wasnt usually very high quality or even steel. Its was usually mild steel or a weapon was some steel and some iron. It actually says kn sources from the time, that vikings loced steel from places like france, because they made better steel.
The Norse traded mostly for swords. Until it became forbidden to trade swords with them in some kingdoms.
The best sworfs were Frankish and they got their steel from India via mid-east.
They often folded the iron when making blades, which helped get rid of impurities. Case hardening with bone was frequently done, which can make a pretty good layer up to 3mm deep.
But of course, they sourced iron from France, and indeed everywhere they could.
That is not really accurate. ua-cam.com/video/i2qSTLYqmQ4/v-deo.htmlsi=-QaObVv7TLVQWXwc
@@contentsdiffer5958 yeah, I'm not saying they couldn't make good steel, but steel in the quality and quantity to make swords, was a luxury product
In general steel was really expensive. It's the most important reason why armour was usually limited to mail and often not even that. So a weapon that uses less steel is just much cheaper. Nowadays steel is reduced so much in price that we can make buildings out of it (which would have been completely unafordable even for the richest of kings for most of history, while nowadays steel shacks are used by the poorest of people), but back in the day axes would be much cheaper, simply because there's so much less steel needed.
As for the delicacy of swords, you are right, that is why, unfortunately, today we have a lot of old, more ornate sabers, worn with elegant clothes, but few combat sabers used in battles. Apparently they lasted on average only 2-3 years of war use.
2-3 years of war use is pretty good for a rifle. In actual combat weapons get used up fast.
Conversely, why would you make an extremely durable weapon when you can make 10 normal ones for the same price.
@@korosuke1788 The problem is whether the cheaper ones will suddenly break mid-battle. I remember a discussion where one guy said that statistically, an anti-tank gun could only fire 10 or 20 times on the battlefield because it was quickly detected and destroyed. Therefore - he asked - why was the barrel designed to withstand many thousands of shots? The second guy told him that it was difficult to design a barrel to withstand 20 or 50 shots. Either you make it right and it will last for many thousands, or it will suddenly break after the first, second or fifth shot. Probably a similar problem also concerned, to some extent, swords.
"The sword is for show, the axe is for dough" - Hagar the Horrible's Viking Handbook.
Love all the migration/viking era stuff you've been doing lately, easily my favourite period of history all round (in all senses)!
The durability is probably why you see so many high status axes, with silver inlays in Scandinavian Viking age archaeology. The fighting dude who could afford a sword also knew the benefits of the axe, so he brought an axe for the mele (together with a sword)
The Northmen were first and foremost steel/iron tool users adept at crafting wood evidenced by the beauty and efficiency of their ships. They and their smiths were accustomed to forging bladed tools. As a practical matter, given the material, most local smiths with a helper could fashion an effective fighting ax in a day. On the other hand swords, before the Middle Ages, required a teem to produce and more time and material. Thinking about typical groups of men wandering around away from home one would expect them to have some kind of small ax handy for simple chores anyway. So, unless one is rich or heroic in stature, it is expected that a handy ax would be the default weapon when the spear is not available.
If you're a budget viking you use an axe instead of a sword, spend what you saved on your mail shirt and helmet
Weapon axes are not really advisable as tool axes. The weights, balance, edge bevels, and so on are all quite different, and you do not want your weapon dulled from chopping wood. Matt has also previously addressed that the price of swords relative to axes is routinely overstated.
@@NevisYsbryd I had a cold steel Viking axe (not the Dane axe and not the Norse tomahawk) I thought it was a pretty good design for either. You can reforge an axe easier than forging a sword.
That was not my point at all. The separation between tools and weapons is less than you seem to imagine. The were not professional warriors but guys that left their farms and their fishing villages and lumber yards and went looking for space in lands that were not claimed by kith and kin. The weapons they had were often forged locally. The famous and successful often had very pretty and sophisticated weapons but the run of the mill took what was available. Don't forget that the same guys that sailed the ships and crewed the ships were also the guys that built them. The current period often makes distinctions in material things that were not available in other times.@@NevisYsbryd
Can you provide any sources for your statements? Such as the Northmen being first at what u said? Because I really doubt it. Nothing against you btw, I just disagree with the statements presented.
separate comment fot this: i feel like, in the general understanding of the topic, people don't realize that weapons were a disposable thing. especially in war, i'm saying. i can also imagine that after a battle, scavengers would go to the battlefield and collect the broken weapons to be sold and considered part of the loot. what we have in the museums now probably didn't see that much of a combat, or simply was too pretty to waste, a side arm of a noble or a wealthy person. we tend to forget how many people would protect said person in life and war back in the day. i wonder how many nails or tools were forged out of broken swords, like, today we see people forging a knife or even a seax out of a file... humans, crafty people we are...
Oh yes, and scavengers would loot the bodies.
For a woodsman EDC I’d say the best two defensive weapons would be a quarter staff and a hatchet. Good setup for a wandering monk as well. ☯️🙏
And you need a hatchet anyway, for firewood or build a shelter from the rain. So a hatchet is one of your first tools you learn how to use for protection. In a time with less protection by the law, your parents sure taught you how to use what you've got to save your self and the family.
Love this content, as Usual Matt Easton is a legend when it comes to actual facts. I also love the focus on Axe's reliability, now my fictional dwarves can brag about this specific argument when discussing their heirloom superiority :D
Matt provided us with so much context on this one I'm promoting him from Captain to Major! Major Context, report!
2 main benefits of an axe for a viking:
1) It's cheaper, possibly "free" in that you already needed it for the carpentry of building the ship.
2) Vikings would have years of practice swinging axes, including for building the ships. (Unlike French squires who were trained with swords from an early age.)
In some urban incidents where knives were used in assaults, the victim was able to escape, or even seriously assault the attacker, after being seriously, even fatally stabbed. That suggests that cuts and chops might be very significant in battle because a properly placed cut or chop is more likely to be immediately disabling.
Well yeah. Being stabbed doesn't usually hurt until you realize you've been stabbed. Chopping attacks are a force and losing the ability to use your limbs due to slicing or chopping changes self defense into panic. (disclosure: I've never been stabbed.....my adoptive mother was stabbed over 20 times, according to her, and she said it just felt like someone weakly punching her) That was long before I was adopted.
@@Thulgore I had been thinking about the subject in conjunction with the fact that cutting swords grow in use from the 17th century or earlier in many military contexts. Then in the early 20th and final moments of the 19th centuries, thrust centric swords become fashionable(?) again. They are optimized for use in prolonged CQC. The foot soldiers carry some fairly nasty CQC weapons. A friend of mine has a trench knife from WW I US military. The blade is triangular, simply for stabbing, and the hilt is brass knuckles with spikes on each of the finger bows. So, the designer assumed very close combat, face to face.
urban incidents of what era
During an argument about why she hadn't done something that was one of her agreed duties, I have been stabbed, by a woman who luckily didn't know what she was doing. I took the knife off her and she ran out of the house and left me there, and only then I noticed that she had stuck it into me twice. The only reason I didn't die is because I was 15 minutes ambulance ride away from a hospital. It hurt a bit, but not as much as some of my sports injuries, and though I am known for being extremely stoic I was in enough pain after about 2 minutes, that I FELT like it was a fatal injury. What was worse was, I also had a sickening washing out feeling, like I was dissolving, and got progressively weaker and more "I am weak as a kitten, I can't get comfortable, I feel bad, this is BAD" way.
It wasn't in an immediately fatal place, and the kitchen knife was razor sharp and thin so I didn't feel it.
If she had known to stick it in and turn the blade though, I would have been dead for all money, I was assured by the young Doctor.
About 2 YEARS later she was finally convicted . . . had only spent 8 days inside before the court granted her bail and home detention until the trail, AND name suppression until the conviction, and then she got an 11 month suspended sentence and "Bound over to good behaviour" by the court.
If I had stabbed her, and run away without letting anyone know, and denied it right up until days before the trial, I would have got 12 years, and what is more, I would CERTAINLY have been in prison the entire time before the trial.
At least she was convicted, and had to carry a conviction for a decade, which shows up on your police record if you, say, stab a shopkeeper in an argument about damaged goods . . . she she did.
@@uncletiggermclaren7592
She was definitely a nutcase.
And should have been in prison much longer.
Also detention under a hospital order. She seems aside from anger issues, not to be good in the head.
Another small point regarding when you get into the melee. If youre swinging around 3 feet of sharp steel and your buddy next to you is ALSO swinging around 3 feet of sharp steel you suddenly have a lot more steel to worry about. Because melees were loud, tight and chaotic messes having a weapon that would hurt who you wanted but NOT cause accidental damage would be a plus. Like you said, swords are dangerous from point to hilt and even accidental contact can cause great harm. But with an ax, while sure you MIGHT bonk your mate while maneuvering it, youre not swinging it so the blow is largely incidental. The chances of friendly fire are vastly greater with a sword. Might not be a big reason but it probably only takes stabbing a friendly once because one of you got shoved to make you reconsider weapon choice.
Love'd the vid. I have to admit i never really thought about the shield being used to block the sword when i thought about sword vs axe scenarios and a simple shield i can imagine anyone could've made and carried back in the viking age. I always imagined trying to block a sword with your axe and how it would damage the handle, but you got the shield for that.
Think
Sword and shield,
Sword, shield, shield, sword.
Axe and Shield,
Shield, shield, shield, shield, shield, Axe.
@@amorphoussolid8512🎶SHIELDILY SHIELD! WONDERFUL SHIELD!🎶
I would add that a short axe is much better suited for melee type CQC than most swords. Gladius and possibly cutlass would be exceptions to that. In fact tomahawks (short axes basically) and trench shovels were used in CQC well into the 20th century.
When you look at the full range of axes and hatchets that were used in Northern Europe for wood working, ship building and tree felling--before steel reached the quality that caused the saw to replace many of the styles of axe--there were types of wood working axe that closely resembled the various types of battle axe.
My point is that most blacksmiths had considerable experience of making something not too different to a battle axe--and much of the male population had some skill in using at least three or four types of axe.
What we know of as a axe nowadays--is the tree felling axe, and the firewood splitting axe--neither of which resemble a battle axe at all.
One other advantage Axe's have over swords is that they require far less time to sharpen, spending 10- 20min with an axe stone vs 2 hrs to sharpen a whole sword can mean a lot of man-hours gained for an army or warband. A sword also has more steel to rust and so requires more general maintenance. You can replace a axe haft with just about any straight branch with some whittling, especially when the axe head is just slid on and friction locked as they historically were (as opposed to the modern wedge/key technique that is used these days, but even that could be done with fairly minimal tools required), forests were far more common during this period and even sub-par wood could be used if required without too much lost to the axe effectiveness.
Axe can be more easily "adjusted" this way, too, for wielder or circumstance, than a sword. Haft a bit longer, shorter, thicker, thinner, grip improved or replaced. Wondered how often that happened, but you're less likely to need a smithy like you often would with a sword.
You can absolutely re-haft an axe with green wood from tree branches, but you wouldn't want to unless you have no alternative. Green wood is too soft and springy and won't last long with heavy use, it gets weaker with use. Ideally you want hardwood that has been seasoned: kept in the dry for a few months.
@@4d4m22 Very true, but not where I was going; totally agree that green wood would be a bad choice, I've fit axes before. My operating thought would be swapped with seasoned wood, though it makes for an interesting question of did they possibly carry spares when traveling, was decent wood possibly "recycled" from broken oars or heavy spearshafts, things like that. Even in re-enacting we tend to have to tweak or even rebuild gear, often wonder about the historic methodologies that preceded us.
@@Lorfanatic Ah right yes I agree. I’m sure there would have been spare hafts carried around on occasion. Maybe generic ones that could be made to fit a variety of weapons with a small amount of fettling. And it makes total sense to repurpose oars and the like if necessary.
sounds a lot like the revolvers vs autoloading pistol debate in the firearm communities. when carrying a gun for self defense, the revolvers are more limited than autoloaders due to thier high trigger weight and low capacity. but many of the arguments revolve (funny pun) around revolvers being more reliable and less likely to jam or cause a shooter induced malfunction. its funny to see the same discussion and thoughts were had back throughout history.
Metallurgy is a complex art. I have seen how much it has advanced in the automotive and combat vehicle industry. The things they did with what they had to work with are pretty impressive. The size of the armies they had to outfit also probably affected quality.
Plus the axe is easier to create/make. I do like a good sword, and I own a few. But, if I had to go into combat with an edged weapon. I'd use one of the many axes I own to take into combat. And I'm not talking tree chopping axes. I have also built a period correct shield. Good video.
I heard that there was a mass manufacture of swords among the Carolingians and sword rarity was more of a thing in the north.
As a viking I would like to have axe even if I have good sword. It is irreplaceble as a tool when camping uotdoors and for small repairs. And I agree, it is probably easier to hurt guy with good chainmail using axe then sword. Even Romans used pickaxe (dolabra) against heavily armored enemies.
According to the Norwegian sagas, most kept their battle axes still after acquiring a sword as it were useful and really didn't take much room on the gear
Though I essentially agree with your assesment of the cutting capability of that model of rapier. As an Ophtalmologist I must caution you that I gave eye medical care to two fellow starting theater actors who were fooling around with a similar model without eye protection and through a quick small upward move (not even a thurst) managed to split the other one's eye in half, loosing all eye content ending up in evisceration at the surgery room and prosthetic rehabilitation.. so I would say "cutting potential" would depend on the structure being "cut" and how the slice Is done (sharp tip of the blade)...
Awesome video Matt!
Another few pros of the axe are they are good for hooking and binding up spears.
The leverage they give along with hooking means you can disarm opponents with correct timing and techniques.
When attacking a shield if the opponent stops the blow on the haft with the edge of the shield the head of the axe may still hit in the arm or head around the shield due to the head passing further behind the shield face than the haft.
The second axe you showed, or any with a pronounced horn can be used to thrust. I like to hook a shield wait untill they resist and thrust to the face or body. Might not kill but a wound none the less.
Axe is also a good back up to a sword or one handed spear to, if you loose a shield you can hold an axe in your left hand and use it defencively.
If the haft breaks you can hold the axe under the blade as a kind of improvised punching weapon if enough of the haft is left.
You can also hook opponents bodies, distrupt their structure so one of your battle brothers can get a spear in.
Amazing weapons really.
I love axes 😂❤
Thanks Matt you are speaking my language😊
Matt, your enthusiasm is hard to beat!
Could you do a video on the Gallowglass Sparth Axe, please?
Yes, the Galloglass in general need more attention
@@scholagladiatoria Indeed! Thank you. Cheers
That blade at 1:55 looks awesome
I think its a type X..... AKA a BVH (Basic Viking Hacking) Sword.
It can thrust, but its really good for cutting and it can cut all the way to the tip
Hey Matt, some of my thoughts also came around to campaigning /raiding in that era.. I believe an axe was also far easier to maintain in good shape than a sword.. or even to repair it. An Axe shaft can be made by only even a good knife in the worst case, while a sword requires tools or even a forge. I imagine troops being on a longer campaign far from base, fighting various skirmishes in a row.. really no time to sharpen long sword blades, repair pommels etc.. an axe must have been so much easier to keep in "battle shape"
Appreciate the comments on the material construction. Theory is great, but noting that some weapons (swords in this case) have disadvantages is a critical point that is often ignored.
Plus axes required overall less iron/steel and were easier to produce and repair.
A broken sword requires specialised tools and a skilled craftsman to repair. A broke axe handle can be replaced with the most basic of tools.
the guy that owns the axe could probably replace the handle himself too.
I have seen few swords broken over shield boss, lost one this way too. But axes too can be broke this way, mostly in the narrowest part. Everything I have seen was a modern steel of course, but in the crafting process, defects can be introduced even today. I wonder about hand protection in this time period. With axe you have almost no protection and hand is extremly vulnerable. When weapon is lost, you can rearm yourself, when hand is lost, you are done.
Regarding hand protection, it's also fair to say that swords of this period have very little hand protection. It's better than an axe, but very minimal compared to later swords.
I love how Matt is slowly becoming more of an axe fan. I remember videos many years ago where he had very little good to say about axes and hawks.
"Choose an axe, because your sword can wait in scabbards!"
I've always loved axes, but I think comparing them directly to swords is more complex than average viewers and users might realise, and I don't want to overshadow the fact that people went to great cost and effort to have swords in most cases.
Even a linen coat was some protection against a sword blade. would be interesting to hear you discuss sword & shield attack targets & spacing vs Axe & Shield targets & spacing.
One thing I'm a bit curious about, given the attack movement made with axes... I wonder if they are more likely than other weapons to dig in and get stuck in the target. I wouldn't expect that to happen fast with the smaller axe, but with a bigger blade and more force...
Would love to see a bone-in-gell test on that!
The thin pre-viking and viking period swords had extraordinary cutting capability but even the best quality swords were relatively fragile, this is also a reason for the use of lang-sax heavier but much more resistant with a thicker back.
I love how u upload almost every day !
Ohh you hitting the axehead onto the wooden shield makes a nice sound like a drum. Thats very fascinating. So it is like a musical instrument. Now I understand that this can be used before engaging in battle to fire up the morale and intimidate the enemy, no? :) Cheeres.
My intuitive understanding of axe's their popularity throughout the ages (outside of your durability argument, which I find very compelling, given that wooden shafts arent nearly as lacking in durability as people assume, granted the reality that you never get to hit the shaft as if its locked against a surface, its not at all like splitting wood which I imagine people equate it to somewhat):
With axe -> Hit anything -> Satisfying results OR axe breaks, need better axe (Almost no maintenance required, easier to make en masse). Not to mention doors (nasty things that seperate vikings from their loot) and axes go together like cheese and wine.
With sword -> Hit anything that is person like -> Mixed results, need axe. (Too dependent on factors like alloy qualities available, smithing technique, and maintenance)
With mace -> Hit it and it goes down, but shields get in your way too much until armour overtook the need (or popularity) of shields.
I'm somewhat joking of course, but at the same time I believe there's some truth to that line of thought. Production and availability of course played a major role in all this as well.
Not nearly as fancy as a sword of course, so if corpses and broken down doors were your thing, axes, if flair and art like mastery was your thing, swords we go!
None of which is as fancy as that pole-axe you have in the back there I do play favourites.
huhuh i just recalled when as a kid i asked my uncle why a particular tool that looks like a warhammer is locally called "malepeggio" or in english literally "badworse". he's like "because this side hurts, this side hurts more". ooooook.🤣
Underrated comment! That’s hilarious! 👍🏻
you could easily carry both the small axe and the sword you showed as a backup to a spear, sword on your left side so you draw it traditionally and axe on the right maybe just stuffed under a belt with the head holding onto it.
same would allso be possible with a bigger axe and a seax. The seax and the small axe are both very usefull as tools and dont have to be carried as a weapon but can be used as one if needed while the bigger axe and the sword are dedicated for fighting.
Yay for swords but *love* me an axe. Go, Gimli!
"stress riser" sounds so innocent. It can easily rise the stress by a factor of 5 or more - especially if it´s a sharp crack. As toolmaker we did not use sharp hard pencils to mark aluminium for that reason. It cause quick failure.
Hitting with the heel of the axe can damage it. The eye was usually not hardened and could be deformed by hitting a hard object.
And lastly: Axes for woodwork were not overbuilt. They were built for the purpose. Some needed momentum and all needed to withstand hard hits against objects with little give. From a fighters perspective they are without a doubt too heavy though.
An axe is also a better tool than a sword. If you had to carry everything, you'd want to carry things that could do more than one job.
You finally got to it at the end.
I don't think they're more durable, but you can replace an axe handle cheaper and easier than fix your blade.
Durability, we could argue about, but I can go cut down a tree today. I don't yet own a forge and anvil.
Though, it's on my list!
Well said, but I want to add that a good smith could weld a small but high quality strip of steel into a wrought iron body and have a perfectly workable weapon. The advantage to that is wrought iron isn't likely to snap, especially given the stresses vs geometry. The edge might shatter, sure, but as Matt said, then you still have a mace.
As for the handle, remember that nobody's going to slice through it, given that it will be free to move. The difference here is that, as Matt said, a notch could set up a catastrophic failure. A wooden shaft that gets notched has been damaged a bit, but will be structurally sound if it got hit again. Or to put it another way, you can fracture steel, but wood can't fracture due to it being a dense pack of fibers.
Not coming at you, this is conversational, and I hope interesting, too.
@bookman7409 Yeah, it totally depends on the quality of forgery, to the quality of wood.
Now, I've seen swords break in shows like Forged in Fire. I've only broken one of my swords, but it was a weakness at the hilt. I've broken several axes.
Now, I chop wood way more than play with swords. So, that could be observation bias.
7:16 It's great to hear someone not use French, but in English, that'd just be byrne, likely without the "ee" sound at the end. There's a lot of words from old english that could be used. One of the ones I like the most is "wælhlence" with "wæl" being a sadly lost word for "slaughter", and "hlence" giving us modern "link" ^^
I have often wondered how they would deal with chips and cracks, did they just discard them or were repairs attempted. Do we have any examples of swords like that?
There are several swords that looks like they are shortened, if only the tip is broken and at least one in Finland with blade markings disfigured and in new the tang. That one seems to have broken near the handle.
I have also seen a fair number of 17th-19th c. knives or daggers that were clearly made from broken sword or sabre blades.
There is a mention of a broken sword re-forged into a spearhead in Norse sagas, if I remember correctly. So metal was certainly re-cycled.
Thank you tp everyone for the replies, I know nothing about western stuff, (and only slightly more about Japanese stuff) so it is wonderful to be able to learn more.
It's nice to know that when somebody broke my favourite bokken years ago and I made it into a wooden wakazashi and tanto that I was being historically accurate. I just thought that I was being a skinflint!!
Without reading all 100 comments, there is another element to the axe's durability. The wooden haft is more likely to fail and replacing that is cheap and simple. The head is more likely to survive and if the blade gets bent a little, easily repaired as well.
I like to think of the sword as "a battlefield scalpel", personally I'm of the opinion that it was for the most part (during this period) it might have been more of a prestigious secondary weapon. Marking out men of higher social standing with elite training etc. much like the use of a military side arm (handgun) has been seen and used in different contexts over time throughout more recent history. (Once again, please consider the above mentioned as purely my own outlook on the matter).
15:14 There is never too much context!
big fan, lots of context is excellent!
13:45 Smooth operator...
Thanks Matt, you made the subject approachable. Appreciated.
Unless I missed it I would assume an axe, especially a small one, would be much cheaper than a sword. That's likely a pretty important factor too. Better to have a cheaper sidearm than none at all.
Richer vikings were in the sagas known to look rep their battle axes on their fighting gear still after getting a sword as well, and often favered using the axe over the sword.
So in a battle one had more backups options:
Spear --> axe --> sword -->sax.
I'd love for you to delve further into the Ulfberht sword because I still don't understand it. (I get how it was amazing.......don't understand the history)
Huge fan sir! I wanted to ask you, here and among others, if there is any historical record of the cost difference between and axe and a sword of this period? To keep argument or debate to a minimum, say going with an loosely "average" cost and quality for either for the time?
It would be cool with a drawing of secondary weapon video.
Like, what secondary weapons can be drawn fast enough to make a difference if someone gets within your spear reach? If any.
Are there some that will be easier to draw and sheath wothout looking? While moving? Etc
Hoping to see more axe reviews.
Would a viking warrior have an extra shield with them during a battle? What would you do if your shield suddenly breaks or it's pulled away from you? Pick up a dead warriors shield and fight with it?
It takes surprisingly much to actually break a shield. And even a heavily damaged shield will remain functional for a very long time. Skalagrim did a great video on it about 8 years ago. Search UA-cam for: "Skallagrim plywood shield vs broadsword".
And yes, of course you would pick up another shield/sword/axe when yours fails.
In battle you do whatever it takes to survive. I'm sure the more experienced fighters would keep an eye for usable weapons and shields on the battlefield as backups.
The Roman Swordsman belonged to an empire rich enough to feed and train him well and armor him. Gladiatorial games displayed the exact techniques required and the typical legionnaire was a superbly healthy, fit, and motivated killer. I am surprised Rome ever lost. That same empire could also afford to repeatedly replace his short sword if it was judged too badly damaged after battles. They were about the only soldiers in history to rely on the sword. Everyone else used a spear as the primary weapon. Everyone else using swords were essentially a tiny minority not doing much but chopping up fleeing soldiers or slaughtering peasants. We identify the sword with rank and aristocracy while it was the spear, the knife, pole arms, and axes not much different than my boys axe that were actually carried in numbers.
Plenty of period axes in fact do have very delicate, thin "sword like" blades too, though.
And can have pretty long blades/beard that could be very prone too damage.
Many indeed had pretty stout, short axeheads that would handle stresses better, but still plenty of daneaxes in particular have blades only few milimeters thick all the way.
Then there's something like Poznań-Luboń axe that is thin, and has long, slender beard that would likely bend rather easily.
Certainly some period axes have pretty thin and delicate blades compared to other axes, but they are not prone to failure in the same way as a sword blade can completely break - if you loose a piece of an axe blade, you still have a functional weapon in your hand generally.
@@scholagladiatoria Thinking about this, mentioned Luboń axe has pretty solid hammer part on it's opposite side, despite being 11th century, like quite many Western Slavic axes, so maybe it was there precisely to have something more stout, among other reasons.
While it's perhaps outside the scope of the video - if we're looking at a sword vs. an axe in a secondary role, I'd imagine the axe would also exceed in "non-combat" use. On the trail, on the march, making camp, etc. An axe is a much more useful tool generally speaking for all the non-fighting stuff you'd be doing as well.
Kingdom of Bohemia REPRESENT!
Nice sekera you have there, Matt!
Happy Czech noises ...
I think one of the biggest advantages to an axe is, back in those days, as a normal "civilian" (peasant, villain, etc) you grew up using an axe. Cutting firewood, housing, lopping off a chicken's head. Everyone felt comfortable with an axe. I grew up as a logger, started at 13, and while we used chainsaws, we still used axes. We heated our house (in northern california) with firewood that had to be split which I did since I was 7 years old. If you offered me a sword or an axe for combat right now, I would choose an axe. I know how to use those, spent my whole life with one. I don't know how to use a sword. When I go hunting, I carry a hatchet, in my rig I carry a two handed axe. I always have an axe because they're simple and easy for me to use because I grew up with them in my hand(s)
Great video. Cheers from Norway 😃
I love Ibn Fadlan description of the viking swords he witnessed and their description might have lent that they were Ulfbert swords, he said "swords of the frankish style" yes that's an open ended label but I can dig the idea given the time period and the Volga trade route
Ahh,but the sword that was broken shall be reforged.
Anduril, Flame of the West!
Another side weapon briefly mentioned is the Seax & the longer scramaseax.
The Scramaseax would go onto form the early falchions in sword development all of Celtic & Germanic origin.
Mind how long is seax till it is considered a sword & not a knife?
Besides durability I say the main advantages of an axe is cheap, power & it's intuitive as it requires little to no training from deign for whack then with the heavy sharp end.
I'd also argue axes are a semi impact bludgeoning weapon against armour for even maille will counteract much of a early swords advantages like the Carolingian-Norse sort you showed.
Really axe or 1 handed doubled edged swords is preference & familiarity.
I have used hatchets & large knifes similar to seax's far more then a double edged sword so the 2 former would be my preference.
I know English staff-polearms & bayonet training as well as knife combat far more then swords which I suspect was more commonly known in history before firearms supplanted the lot eventually.
I hunted since 5 & I know knifes, axes, hatchets & rifles like the back of my hand so when would I want a sword that has no real function as a tool or hunting weapon?
I spared with sabre, rapier, tucks long swords & similar but would I pick them over what I know, no!
I'm pretty poor with a bow compared to my brother so even of pre gun powder missiles I'd favour a crossbow, javelin or even a sling as I played with the latter a lot as a nipper.
People use what they know & have on hand as it is that simple.
Besides knight or nobles etcetera how long do you really think the ordinary person in history spent training in combat much less with a sword that cost 10 oxen or 20 silver shillings in William the conquers day?
How much a sword was earlier then the 11th century I have no idea but it was likely more then 10 oxen which fvck that.
When its a Langseax ?
@@stonedog5547 Take the following lengths as very rough estimates:
*Short-saex=Seaxes (7-14''/15” length blade)
*Hand-saex=Hadseax (14/15'' - 19/20” length blade)
*Langseaxes (19/20/21” to long 31/32' blade
*Scramaaex (31/32 +) largest find I have seen was just over 43 inch blade with a 2 handed handle of 8 inches. so 51/52 inches total in length.
Their could be longer Scramasaex but I Have no idea?
lang or langr is just 'long' in Germanic & Norse.
Skráma in Norse means skramme in Norwegian meaning a scratch/scar.
Some shorter scramasaex are one handed with a over lengthened handle you could easily enough use them with 2 hands or 1 hand though not nimble being kind of a bastard saex like a bastard sword sort of.
The types discussed are likely called such not because of the length but how the blade handles.
Some blade are narrower or broader giving cut at cost of reach & vice versa.
Mass distribution is a thing in weapons.
Besides tip & handle typology in seax's this should explain most of the matter.
@@stonedog5547 I should clarify that only the bone, antler & horn handles have survived semi-intact as the wood handles of saex with rare exception seem to last.
The handles are often longer then the tang I can't give proximate lengths for handles & tangs for in weapon's or tool's construction it is finicky thing to recreate in a forge as a lot of it is guess work or working backward at best.
With the prevalence of mail armour, was there a precursor to the estoc to punch through mail rings?
Dunno if its my shitty phone or not but the sound was a bit "whitenosie"-y, thought you ought to know if its on your end.
Anyhow, great video, keep on keeping up Matt, cheers!
Would love to know the weight of the heads on the big (2 handed) dane axe and the smaller fighting axe.
I have a small bearded axe with just under four inches of edge and a head less then six inches from the back of the eye to the edge, on a handle about a cubit long (so an average tomahawk/beltaxe size)..... It weighs 17oz
I watched like 20 videos of yours before actually subscribing glad I remembered to
At least two times that i can remember from the saga`s i have read, the first thing that happen in this cases when they got a sword as a gift, was to try the sword on something hard to see if it was a good sword or not.
Can anyone tell me what Matt is referring to at 11:16, where he says that modern steel is more reliable than anything from that period apart from...a "Northbert"? Wat that?
People almost never bring up that almost every child probably had experience with an axe and distance with it. This is experience. This means a lot. Spears were used for hunting. Axes were used by everyone. They serve so many purposes......and can be honed to provide different "utilitarian" needs as needed.
just thinking - once the press gets too close to use a spear, the axes shorter reach might actualy be an advantage over the sword.
In reenactment, I got him a lot of grief, for the fact that I would use a sword, and what would be qualified as a chopping or falling ask as the sword in my main hand, the following acts in my offhand, and could in joules or in combat, do damage to my opponent I was second rank so I wasn’t or did not need a shield and I used a spear from time to time they did not like it because I could see their moves and their body position for attack and I agree with you that it was a primary tool/weapon
this was awesome ive always loved axes
Once you pull the shield aside what happens then? Does he move the shield back and stab you or does he just give up?
I've never so far seen any mention by anyone - that the popularity of spears/axes might be at least partially - because for any given volume of iron/steel, more spears or axe heads could be produced per kg of metal than if they were made into swords. Temper might be important to stop a sword blade from fracturing after repeat concussive blows especially with the possibly spotty heat treatment used by commonplace smiths who might have made more ploughshares or scythes than swords. But high quality heat treatment might have been less vital in the shorter stubbier shapes of spear/axe heads?
Given say 3kg of steel how many swords of the type used at the time could that produce? As opposed to hand axes or spears? I wonder if maybe three times more weapons might be producible if they weren't swords? A spear doesn't need a blade of the sword-size shown here to be a terrifyingly effective killing device. Nor yet an axe - check the end of Henry de Bohun in 1314!
So - was "Economics of steel" a factor? If a lord had to arm a raiding party or a small army, perhaps it might have been?
What about more choppy blades like a type 2 falchion, would they have the same durability issues? I know it isn't related to viking era weapons, but just to expand on the topic.
What is your jacket called looks great it suits the show .You look like a stunt man ?
It's the officer jacket from SPES historical fencing wear.
If you break axe shaft. most pepole would be able to make a new. in a day at max. what do you do if your sword break.
Particularly on a campaign with multiple battles it might be a good idea to keep an axe back at camp to use once your sword has taken too much damage. Not many people would be able to afford spare swords, but a spare axe is easily affordable for a swordsman.
Ax was a tool everybody had, so a normal wood ax was one of the first tools you learned to fight with for self protection. And a spear was used for hunting, something most people had and learned early on to use. So if you were a young ambitious, but not wealthy, man you took whatever you've got and was used to, when you first joined a journey. And you need an ax on your journey anyway, for cutting wood. I guess that ax would been carried as a second backup even if you had a sword. If you had money or someone sponsered you you might could afford more specialiced weapons and learned to fight with them, but for the common man they had to take what they've got. Even if you later in life get money to buy a sword or a battle ax, you have to relly on the skills you've learned early on. Are you going for a new skillset of sword fighting or are you upgrading your ax fighting?
I think there is more to it than the objective pros and cons of the weapons. If you were a rich mans son, you start learning sword fighting early on. The farm may even had a small army of 5-10 men for protection, with skilled professionals. If you were a pagans son, probably noone in your family own a sword, nor was very skilled to use it. But your father could teach you how to swing an ax. Agains wood and enemies.
I was wondering about the use of falcatas, and how they seemed to had been made very durable by Hannibals armies. I wonder if this aided the use of the blade, and then also comparable to axes in heft and weight, given that a larger mass of the weapon is at the end than on typical one handed swords, as well as the forward curve providing more weight distribution towards the blade end.
Timely video. I set aside this evening for sharpening my axes...look on youtube for something to watch? Oh look! Timely.
And the cost and oportunity to find an axe is clearly better than a sword.
I mean, even in XX century in some rural countries, there were towns with their own blacksmiths, and most of them have small forges and only tools to make the axe heads (yes back in days they punch the steel into head molds). And i really doubt about a rural blacksmith doing a sword with tiny forge and only a bunch of wood or carbon-wood.
So, for most warbands axe was the answer, Cheaper/Stronger/Easier/Numbers.
I think the traditional Scandinavian bearded axe should have been discussed in the context of this video. The capability to disarm a sword wielding opponents with a bearded axe, and bend or break a sword, gave the axe wielder a key advantage in battle.
Probably one of the reasons many preferred axes before swords, even if they could afford it. With all the highly decorated axes that's been found with silver and gold inlay and so on.
It has been said that all bladesmiths ae blacksmiths, but not all blacksmiths are bladesmiths. Bladesmiths are specialists. They have to know more about the iron and steel, particularly high carbon steel. While a blacksmith may know a bit about high carbon steel, their knowledge is not as extensive and they are not likely to have the experience in crafting a long, thin high carbon sword blade. They may craft a knife, but the length of a sword blade increases the stress AND the failure points relative to a knife, much less an axe. While a sword will likely use a 1075 to 1095 steel, an axe steel may range from 1050 to 1075.
As such a bladesmith may be available at or near a Norseman's home, they will certainly not have one available when they go viking. At best, they may have a blacksmith that can repair knives and axes, possibly even make one if he has the materials and the time. That makes the ax much more dependable when viking. It also helps that an ax doubles as a tool.
While a viking nobleman might have a sword, you can bet he also has an ax handy.
I wonder if the axe is more reliable against someone wearing thick winter clothing. Especially when fighting an uncooperative opponent where it's difficult to land a perfect blow
Could you do a test of over striking the axe vs chopping with a sword even a crap sword I think you will be surprised at how easily an over strike with an axe will snap the head off the handle. Please prove me wrong. Ps absolutely love your videos
That settles it. I'm carrying an axe and a sword next time I time travel
Good plan! Take a couple of modern built swords and you’d make a fortune. Even a low end modern sword would probably be better than what they had back in the day. Happy time traveling! 😁
Not sure if you can hear it Matt, but your audio got a little choppy and the background static is a little distracting.