Axes heads and shields - should they be pointy or rounded?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2016
- Free month with TheGreatCoursesPlus.com: ow.ly/hebs303M5VN
Why are axe heads gently curved and not pointed? Why are round shields so popular? One rule of geometry is a good reason for both.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Another long one, rambling on about the merits of curves in this case, by way of old 2000A.D. comics and frisbeeing crockery.
As with all such videos, people in the comments are getting a bit hung-up on the supposed accuracy of the physics. Physicists calculate using simplifications. There are many other factors that I did not talk about here, because I thought that eleven minutes was already too long. Part of what makes a blow glancing is that it slides off the target, so what gives a blow impact is that it grips the target rather than slides over it, and a perpendicular contact with the target affords the best grip. Yes, arms are not round lengthways, and yes, they are not perfectly hard either, so everything in my model is simplistic.
If a cue ball in snooker were cuboid, and slid across the baize, then if it didn't strike the target head-on, much of the effect of the impact would be to apply torque rather than to cause displacement. A spherical cue ball will instead always cause displacement, and this is a good indicator of the effectiveness of the impact of a weapon (that does not impale).
Obviously, if you want to impale someone, as with an arrow or spear, then pointy is the way to go.
I do not say that round shields are the best, nor that all shields were round. I am just discussing one factor that influenced their design. There were others.
More weapons and armour videos here: • Weapons and armour
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.bandcamp.com/track...
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige (it's a 'page' and now seems to be working).
Google+: "google.com/+lindybeige"
website: www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
/ user "Lindybeige"
You could say that being rounded is being pointy at every direction at once.
bet lindy wishes he had thougth of that :)
I've heard a wheel described as a continuous lever. Sounds like a round blade is basically a continuous point.
Pointy at every direction, but less pointy than an actual point.
Exactly - I'm not saying it doesn't suit the purpose. Just that it's not equivalent to a point in all directions
But it's not it's the opposite of a point by definition
"Bodies are roundish - a bit flatter at the front..."
My love of beer has fixed that problem Lloyd.
Nicolas...Nicolas Lloyd.
So it is Mr. Lloyd? Well, you learn something new every day.
Do Brits often use nicknames, like Nick for example? Bob for Robert? Or are they too proper for that?
they cannot be too proper. Remember, they drive on the wrong side of the road and drink their tea with milk. And they cannot learn the proper North-American pronunciation. :- )
+hang3xc1 My british boss´ name is Nicolas, but he and everyone else refer to him as Nick. So maybe LindyBeige prefers to be called Nick Lloyd if the full name is used?
"Whereas people, in battle, tend to fidget a lot, don't they?"
That sounds like the voice of experience. Lloyd's killed a lot of people in battle.
Hahahhaa
You can see it in his eyes
Yep
"They just will not keep still"
Predominantly frenchmen
Sometimes I feel like Lyold puts more effort into making his hair as messy as possible than just leaving it naturally unkept.
Haha probably!
(Unkempt btw)
not to mention his frumpy clothes and he left his collar up.
Random Stranger it's correct to use "two" rather than "2" in instances of a single digit number.
Ben Masta anything below ten is supposed to be spelled out correct?
Unless you're indicating a range of numbers where one is below 10 and the other 10 or above, e.g., "7 to 10"
"Rounded is more pointy, and to be pointy is rather pointless."
You deserve and Oscar for that line.
Why would he deserve an Oscar for a a line in a 11 minutes youtube video?
Bruno Torres why r u taking it so seriously?
@@brunoactis1104 Clearly, he deserves an Oscar because it's the sort of thing Oscar Wilde might say.
@@brunoactis1104 -
BZSSo
Because Ze Said So
"Logs stay still, they're really quite predictable things" - Lindybeige 2016 :D
That cracked me up.
"Logs stay still" spoken like a man who's never had to log a hillside, those fuckers will roll down and flatten a dude like a friggin Wile E Coyote cartoon. The ancient law of the jungle is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" so you knock a tree down you better be prepared to get knocked down yourself.
disagree, plot logx from 0 to 1
I don’t understand these comments
I am Big Brain
Well, the username checks out.
So, axes are rounded for the same reasons that you don't play basketball with a cube.
Or with a football
@Enclave Soldier i think i see what you did there
@@halehortler5349 what was it?
BasketCube
@@Verdimillion cubesket
"Lets talk about axes!"
*Pulls out two plates.*
Geometry teacher: "This angle is called a _funny_ angle."
|-O-|
How does that compare to a jaunty angle?
If the log DOES start to move, it might be in your best interest to slowly drop your axe.
I agree! Best to explain as diplomatically as possible that there's been a terrible misunderstanding. Unless you're wielding a 6' chainsaw, there's really very little you can do against a wooden foe that's ready & able to defend itself.
Yes, and the Trojan soldiers (Like the wooden warhorse, only now there's many and it's a soldier) are filled with mini Greek soldiers! Odysseus is a special prize at the bottom of the package.
And Fangorn would still stomp you into his roots...
I am groot!
if the log does move, it will still intersect the axis only one time.
A circle is pointy in all directions.
now that's real deep, man
really....makes you think...
It's also edged in all directions.
It's not about thinking, in geometry, circumferences are considered to have infinite sides and infinite angles XD
Javier Pascual Sarrazin Well, we're talking about geometric shapes, which never exist exactly in reality, so it is conceptual, never entirely physical.
"The Bashing Advantages of Round Surfaces: An Essay."
At this exact moment in time no one has fully finished this video
Lloyd has.
Lioyd finishes videos before other people do... is the internet ready for Lindybeige facts?
Oh Kingdom Cometh!
+Warhorse Studios alleady excited for Kingdom come
Love this community.
He said he was going to biff but then he baffed.
I am so dissapoint.
#freethebiff
8:26
Lol he baffed when he should have biffed.
This is why I have trust issues
Nice sound effects “bif!” “Clack!” “CLANG”
I would imagine it's also the same reason they learned to make to make castle towers cylindrical as opposed to square, around the period of Edward I. On a continuous curved surface, there's a more equal distribution of forces upon impact. An acute point on an axe face would bare the brunt of any forces, quickly blunting or disfiguring it. Hell of a lot easier to resharpen a continuous edge, also.
It also cheaper. Suqare tower have more surface area hence more stones required to build one.
Did you know that a Circle shaped Axe and a Slightly pointed Ax were commonly known as Spandaus in the days of yore. True fact
this gets never old
LOL LOL POMMEL SPANDAU LOL!?!
Maybe in observance of a ballet?
Usually, I agree with you lindybeige, but as a physicist, I must disagree this time. As far as axes and round things hitting stuff goes, your wrong about right angles. Yes, there is a right angle that exists between the two surfaces of two circles touching each other, but that doesn't mean that the impact was at a right angle. If the object was not moving perpendicular to the surface of its target, the angle of the surfaces at the moment of impact has much less effect, since it's about if the forces involved in the impact were perpendicular to the surface of impact. Yes, there are more and less efficient ways of directing that force, and that is a perfectly valid point, which I actually agree with, but it's not because there exists a right angle between the surfaces that the impact is greater, it's that, on average, since there should be a normal distribution around a perpendicular impact, the existence of a right angle at the point of impact is the most efficient way to direct the force of impact.
I think it has more to do with glancing blows than anything else.
With a rounded edge, you are less likely to skip of your target, and thus on an average blow, you still do a lot of damage, while if you have a glancing blow, you almost have no impact
You typed "your wrong". I immediately disbelieve any claim of academic validity and disqualify your comment.
yeah, i think the main advantage of the curve is that the 'point' is much wider from more angles, and is lighter.
This guy has it right. I would also argue that a glancing blow isn't a major concern because of the moments of force acting upon the axe.
I also always assumed shields were round because it's the best shape for the distribution of forces across an area.
I was attempting to somewhat inelegantly make the point that that point was correct, but that the existence of right angles doesn't actually make the blow itself perpendicular, since that depends on the momentum of the axe head. However, assuming a normal distribution of blows around a perpendicular path, a right angle will, on average, direct the force of impact, closest to that of a perpendicular blow. That won't, however, effect actual glancing blows very much. I'd also argue that the curved axe head approximating a section of a circle doesn't actually produce such a right angle, since, as I mentioned, the important thing is the direction of the momentum of the axe head at the moment of impact, and if you hit a cylinder with a circle, edge on, if the path of the circle isn't perpendicular to the tangent of the cylinder at the point of impact, it won't matter and will still be a glancing blow. In fact, I would argue that a straight edge might reduce the instance of this type of glancing blow, since it would have more surface area in contact with the target surface upon the impact in the case of a glancing blow, and that would allow it to bite into the material better.
“What’s the first lesson of shield-fighting?”
“Smack em with the roundy end.”
Flipping Brits and their stationary tree. Here in the US we only have ents.
That sounds like a great name for a gymnastics troupe!
Virshire Virshul in canada we have deku shrubs
"Round is more pointy and Pointy is Pointless"- Lindybeige 2016
No it has a point, it also has reason's to be used instead of a round head. like spear's are meant to attack from a distance and impale an enemy making them very good for anti horse weapon's seeing as you can put you spear into the ground and a horseman will have to decide if they can dodge your spear or back off.if the horseman goes for it, they may find their horse impaled with multiple feat of spear in it. and while you could still be hurt, the horseman has found himself on a basically useless horse suddenly., or more likely off said horse.
still one of the funnier quotes by Lindybeige, besides that pointy axes to me seem just as easy to sharpen as round axes but as far as combat use i see them used better on horseback maximizing the point or in unarmored combat. one example of a good fighting ax is a spontoon which would have the reach and impact advantage of an ax and the piercing advantage of a knife. I don't know too much about them but at first glance they look exceptional for unarmored combat.
Man, I love this part.
As soon as he said snooker "Oh, and that´s a bad miss"
And now, a prayer and a pint with...
Yes! Mitch & Webb FTW.
Cave Man 1: "The invention of stone technology is somewhat of a double edged sword."
Cave Woman 2: "A What?"
Cave Man 1: "I have no idea."
All I want to do, all I want to do, all I want to do is praise him...
+A Cobalt Empire
G'day,
Hmmn, as it happens, Stone Technology can be surprising...; if you're in the mood for it, then backtrack me to my "Aboriginal Technology" Playlist, and begin with "Boomerang Aerophysics....", and consider what kind of a Sharp Rock one uses to carve Hardwood into a Hubless Asymetric Autorotating Sailplane with sharp (low-Drag) Leading-Edges, able to drop overflying Ducks (or Heligoflopters) at 300 Ft...
After pondering that, then have a go at "The Boomerang Carving Stone...", which I think is about 10,000 years old, dating to just before the people around here gave up Stone Tools for Quartz, which holds a better edge...
Just(ifiably ?) sayin' ,
;-p
Ciao !
From someone who’s never swung an axe with the intent to kill someone, I do feel like the pointy axe would get buried deep in the fleshy stuff if you got a good hit and that would make it hard to pull out.
If
Regarding the shield shapes: It could also be a matter of balance. A circle holds the most area in the smallest amount of space. So holding a circular shield with no big angles or pointy bits sticking out would provide the maximum area for blocking attacks in the smallest package, making it easier to move it around to block attacks or bash your opponent. Larger shields with pointy bits (or giant tower shields) provide a larger area to shield with, but are less maneuverable.
Lloyd, you really should do a topic of ancient or medieval Naval warfare. I got over 200 Agreements on one of your other videos, so theres a good number of people that would like too see something about it!
I recently started doing a bit of research on the naval wars between Japan and Korea during the late 16th century. Pretty interesting stuff. I would even argue that Korea essentially pioneered the modern battleship concept. The Japanese marines were very, very good, but their ships were lightly armed and fairly flimsy. Korea, came up with the novel idea that it made more sense to build sturdy, heavily armed, highly maneuverable warships with long range weapons that were designed primarily to set the enemy on fire and sink them at a distance. Hard to argue with the reasoning, really.
When you say pioneered do you mean they were the first to do it or do you mean they popularized it. It annoys me when people say pioneered when they just did it first and couldn't apply the technology to any thing of value that the other parties civilization could have see or hear about. I feel it takes away from the (more) recent inventor's cleverness especially if they couldn't draw on the others knowledge and designs. This isn't directed at you i just was thinking about your comment and warship designs spread across civilizations
Thanx for giving me a topic I never thought to investigate. 16th century Japanese/Korean navies.
If you want a REALLY good dramatization of this concept (which although being rather accurate is by no means a documentary), watch The Admiral Roaring Currents on Netflix. It's Korea's most successful movie based off of a real-life battle off of Korea's coast where a dishonored admiral defeats a 330 strong Japanese fleet, sinking 133 ships with only 14 of his own. Seriously, check it out.
Please Lloyd!
I wonder if perhaps a non-round shield could be knocked aside or manipulated more easily by an opponent. It seems like a round shield that was struck on the side by a weapon might transfer more of the momentum direction to the grip, where as a more angled shield might act like a lever that allows the opponent for move the shield to one side and thus make the shield user more vulnerable.
There was a very good BBC doc on the Battle of Stamford Bridge a decade or so ago where the presenter got flattened by a historian demonstrating exactly that with a bearded axe.
So how would you explain that Roman army way far more effective with their shields then others.
+Hiren Patel They were only more effective because they stayed in formations close to each other, shield to shield. A Roman soldier on his own would be at a significant disadvantage in a variety of ways. Almost all Roman tactics relied on groups of men working together.
Casual Alien So you are telling me that their weapons and shields were inferior.
Hiren Patel In a 1v1 fight a Roman's equipment was absolutely inferior. His shield is too easy to fuck with, and his Gladius doesn't have the reach.
Your advertisement was surprisingly convincing. I think I shall take advantage of their free trial.
"Why yes, I am a hyu-man. Why does thou ask?"
I really appreciate the way Lloyd presents his sponsors. It doesn't feel like an obvious sales pitch
Some axes for chopping wood are also less curved so they can produce flatter cuts for shaping the wood. Broad axes are a good example of this.
Last time I was this early, I was ended rightly.
Presumably you were ended with a Katana, as they hadn't invented the Spendau yet.
How about a pommel. XD
Obviously you use the Katana pommel-first, that's just common sense.
The curvature of the blade means the pommel will always hit at a right angle, ensuring maximum destruction to the person (and everyone else next to him, behind him, in the same room as him, or in the building next door.)
sander heutink omg that got me on the floor. XD
" 'nother one for you here Dave!"
*klonk!*
"Aiie!"
"Thanks Dave!"
I love the pacing of these videos, especially towards the end. Dense information, quick summary, end. There's no rambling towards the end, so you don't feel it coming from a minute away, being tempted to fade it out. It comes surprising, but when you think about it, all the loose ends have been tied up. You got all the information you needed, and you felt entertained until the last second. That's not an easy thing to do.
I wish they'd shown this in geometry class back in the day.
"I understand you think circles are boring, but they're really not."
Well, a circular edge does have, by definition, an infinite number of points.
Port Kapul
True, but I was just using Lindy's terminology in furtherance of what he said at the end there. Not everyone here is a mathematician ;)
Osiedlony Apexes is a perfectly fine word to use my friend. You made perfect sense.
Just gonna put an equation here for future people 22/7
I do think this video slightly misses the point.
This whole video is pointless
@@legostarwarsbattledroid5272 i hope the pun was intended
Noah Jones I think he just wanted to be edgy
Was that pun intentional or are u not the only accident in this comment section
Jk
@Alorand "And the winner of this round goes to..."
It's raining, I'm watching this video instead of working. And I feel this old peacuful and rewarding feeling of a child listening to its master at school. It connects me back to a burried emotion of knowledge and intelligence in the tranquility of human sharing and adult protection. Wich proves that despite the regrettable topic (war), fine spirits are the honey of every living experiences.
I appreciate so much these instants with
Lindybeige, while drops hit my window.
"Logs stay still. They're really quite predictable things" - Lindybeige, 2016
For shields it also has to do with absorption/distribution of energy (and having a regular, predictable shape with which to work). Well designed modern small cars, for instance, use this principle to survive impacts from much larger vehicles.
i want you to be my history teacher
he is!
I want you to convert to penguinism.
I want you to convert to Catholicism
Convert to Penguinism and be saved! Join us at: facebook.com/penguinist4ever/
You seem like the kind of guy who could have a podcast talking about weapons, tactics, and history for ages. Would love to see something like that, possibly in the form of a livestream
I believe a pointy axe is stronger at penetraiting but a round axe is more consistent, since your strikes will always be good with a round axe but with a pointy axe you need to hit more accurately but are capable of dealing more dmg if you land it
Hmm I never thought of it that way before
A roundy axe/shield will always make contact at one point, even when hitting a non-roundy surface. The force will always contact at that point rather than being spread along an edge. So the roundy shape guarantees a good point of contact, whereas pointy things have have a good chance of making contact along an edge, making a blow far less effective.
Even when the force isn't perpendicular to the surface you're hitting, the fact that there's only one point of contact means you still have considerable power no matter how you strike.
I don't think the geometry of your target matters too much for small targets but that fact that our limbs (and head) are roundy makes things that much easier.
lloyd is onto something; what a guy
"You know, if you Frisbee a plate at my head" *Videos taken moments before disaster*
Be careful you don't give yourself paper cuts :o we cant have you get mortally wounded filming for us !
Do not worry. The papers were pointy. Not round.
Loyd is protected by the great and holy ethereal penguin.
You may not have read this somewhere else but it all makes damned good sense to me. Love your videos. Just found em a month or so ago and really glad I did
I'm playing Mount and Blade: Warband right now. Shields can be very important!
With a shield skill above 4, they're arrow magnets... Mine usually looks like a hedgehog after a battle.
Also, Rhodoks forever.
show the vaegirs some love.... no one else does :(
Gotta love dem shields. I even strap one to my back when using a 2H weapon, just so I don't get ninja'd by some archer behind me.
Also, heavy cavalry is OP, but horse archers are way more fun to play :)
the Nords fit my playstyle best. (charge with a mob if infantry, some of them spamming hatchets, oh, and Huscarls)
Looking at your two plates/curves - @ 2:02 - you are always minimising the contact area of a blow (you can't get a flat bit against a flat bit).
This increases force per area (aka pressure), therefore you're ultimately more likely to penetrate your enemy's armour / inflict lots of concentrated damage, rather than spreading out this force over an area of armour.
Love from engineering :)
I was wondering about this the other day and what you've explained makes a fair amount of sense. Thank you for putting this together!
It was your last line that i liked and subscribed for. You sir nailed the delivery, whoever wrote it.... bang on.... and your timing my good man was impeccable.
The word he was looking for was "percussive." An axe has greater percussive force than a sword.
Or impact, or momemtum or just force.
@@Leo.23232 Those aren't the same things
Percussive?! What are you in band camp?
He wasn't comparing axes to swords he was pointing out why axes were rounded and not trianglez
Hurray! But I should get a life though
Hahaha.. I've never been this early.. :)
;-)
Convert to a life in penguinism.
Lol, life is overrated
And so it begins...The great bingewatch session of our time.
Thanks for the free month of Great Courses
I have two other additional theories for axe and shield shape. For shields, it's all about deflecting blows, basically why the norman shield would have a circular top but an ogive bottom that covers the legs. But more importantly a circle maximizes coverage for a given amount of area wheras for any other shape, the shield would be either much shorter or narrower if either length or width was the same as the circle's radius. It probably gives you the best protection for a given shield weight to use a circle.
For axes, hitting a target with a pointed edge in a chopping motion raises the chance that damage will be done to the edge since there's less material on either side to support it. So I think it much more has to do with the edge being sturdier if it's a perfect parabolic curve.
Have you seen those warriors? They got pointy axes. POINTY. AXES.
lindy i'm sorry mate but i don't like your plates
Unacceptable!
Careful, the man knows about axes.
Then don't buy them.
I think you are seeing the bottom of the plates
these videos are great, lindy never fails to surprise me with his unique logical and amusing thinking on things i never really noticed.
300,000+ subscribers you are getting there Lindybeige!
could you do a video on poison weapons e.g. poison arrows/darts etc...?
By wearing your collar up, does that help protect you from a curved axe blade?
Dude you are a BOSS, The way you explain is perfection!
Excellent yet again Mr Beige
I think it's more to do with pressure exerted, a curved blade has only one point on it's surface touching the material it's cutting, the flat blade has a line segment, pressure equals force/area, the point of the curved blade touching a surface exerts much more pressure over it's smaller area, if you have say 1mm of the blade touching, vs say 10mm with the flat blade, you've got 10x the amount of pressure on the point meaning you're much more likely to exceed the breaking strain of that material with a blow of the same power with a curved blade than a flat one.
I believe Skallagrim's covered this in better detail than I can in a video of his- he's actually talking about swords, but it works with axes too. Even though a curved blade is more effective at cutting due to pressure as you say, this isn't so much of a big deal when the target is a body because most points on the body are themselves rounded. A curved blade, then, be it axe or sword, is not quite so massively superior for cutting as one might at first think- that is to say, a straight blade is perfectly sufficient.
A body is not that round. And you still have a pressure point after entering the body, while with a straight blade become a straights line of penetration.
Bart Hoving It is pretty round- at points, it's rounder than the blade of a curved sword, such as the wrists and legs.
I always wondered why the Arms & Armor Knightly Pole Axe had that flat axe head vs. rounded one on more dedicated "axey" polearms. Do you have a theory?
Some axes and tomahawks had spear point blades. So there is a point (ha) of effectiveness to where a point is useful for and for when it is not.
Not to mention this little beauty: static.webshopapp.com/shops/036200/files/012036099/pole-axe-wallace-collection.jpg
Tomahawks are short and you'd think that being sharp makes up for that, also being short makes them easier to "aim" so you'll get that point in to the enemy easier.
Thank you for thanking the time to make your wonderful videos!
I've watched a number of your videos, and they're all very entertaining and informative. But snookering a dinner plate at someone's head earned you a sub!
This video would be useful 800 years ago.
but the axes hes referring to in this video were used 800 years ago
yes i am 2 years late
Axe blades are curved so the edges don't get stuck in the enemy.
Then you're not hitting hard enough :P
The Frosty One
I must say the way you incorporate actual objects in your explanations and not just graphs or pictures of them makes it that much easier to get a grasp of what you're saying. Very pedagogical of you.
I joined the greatcourses and i must say it's really good! The teacher in the series about early civilization is awesome!
sound logic
ITS YOU DADDY
Fancy meeting you here!
Daddy yo how har are you doing you and shoe still together ??
@@jakobvindelbo8723 think they got married.
Wow. Nice to find you here!
It's incorrect, if you do a physics diagram you'll see that the closer to center of mass you hit the greater amount of forward momentum is imparted to the target. A glancing blow even with a cue ball will not transfer as much of the momentum to the target, you can see this by the fact that the cue ball continues at some forward angle. The real reason for curved axe blades is probably to have a longer cutting edge and (reduced swinging mass?), something not needed when felling or splitting.
Yes, even with a cue ball, a head-on hit, centre in line with centre, is the maximum impact, but ones off-centre are less glancing with a sphere.
What he's saying is that, with an edge, it'll glance more than it would with a rounded edge. If you'd play pool, you'd actually know and understand how that works. (Or if you watched the video the whole way though, specifically the spear part)
Think of it this way, if you hit a ball with a triangle, you'll get as much force from the point hitting as you would as the "perfect shot" with the cue ball. But if you miss, the triangle will put less into then the cue ball. Of course this only applies to triangles that has the same center of mass as the cue ball but also keeps it's edges inside the diameter of the ball for simplicity's sake (an equilateral triangle.)
Now remind me to thank my math teacher, I finally found a real life use for any of these terms.
Lindybeige I see, you're right I thought you were saying the plate (for instance) would always impart the same energy whatever the angle. Sorry, Thanks!
I'd also argue that it's simply far easier to sharpen. I'm fairly skeptical that they would have had that much geometrical understanding back when axes first started to take their familiar curved shape but I certainly wouldn't know.
+James Droddy I don't think that the issue is their level of understanding of geometry, I think Lloyd is just trying to explain why he thinks a rounded edge works better than one with a point. The ancient peoples most likely found out through trial and error.
Nice work on parrying those circles, it helped visualise it well
Lindybeige is probably the best youtuber for handling sponsors. He manages to do it in a way that isn't invasive or detract from the video. Other youtubers could learn a lot from him.
2000AD Yeeeeessss loved nemesis the warlock
Be pure, be vigilant, be-have!
Never forget! Never forgive! Never for fun!
I wonder how they chose his name.
Credo!
While I feel you are *mostly* right about blade impact on axes- You're thinking about war axes *way* too similarly to that of wood chopping axes.
While felling axes are wedged heavy chopping blades, this is basically never true for war axes at all.
War axes are often as thin as a sword blade all the way up to the mounting point, and are really not very heavy at all for their size- they're very clearly optimized for cutting, not chopping like an axe. Essentially, they are totally different beasts.
The reason is you really can't chop through a person nearly as well as you can cut or slice through them.
The cutting edge(from what I understand) is round for this reason mostly- a round cutting edge is the best cutting edge for that axe-like shape. Axes *aren't* bludgeoning weapons- if there was a demand for a pure bludgeoning weapon- hammers and maces would have been far more popular far sooner than they were.
....but in terms of shields I totally agree and stuff.
Keep in mind that while the weight might be the same as a sword, it is distributed diferently so it would still feel heavier, and hit harder
Lindy beige is both informative and hilarious (many times unintentionally).
This turned on a lot of lightbulbs, nice job Lind.
It all sounds interesting, but I don't see YOUR point Lind.
circles=good, pointy=bad
Well-handled.
Pointed axe deals more damage only if you manage to hit with the sharp point. Circular axe will always hit with a sharpest point given that it's a circle. It may bot be as damaging as a pointed axe's point, but it's more effective per swing on a living, fidgeting target.
Pointed axe is effectively trying to stab someone with a short, fat knife edge attached at a strange angle.
I love a punny guy!
*****
Yeah, pretty much.
You need to do a segment on why axes do what axes do and swords, ... So many stupid Reenactors doing stupid things with swords.
And good job here.
As a somewhat serious HEMA practicioner, what are reinactors doing with precious little swords?
.
I have to wonder why swords were so commonplace when they're the most useless against armor.
They are a sign of status and great for killing oiks and peasants.
I grew up going no less than a month without chopping wood (as much as half a cord in a day). I was taught that the reason work axes typically have only a very subtle curve to their edge is because it makes them easier to sharpen. Which if you are using a work axe as intended you are doing quite frequently.
My own experience in sharpening (I sharpen something at least once a week for my own use and 2-3 times a month for others) has taught me that a straighter edge is easier to sharpen. It's both easier to maintain angle on and takes less time then a curved edge of the same length.
I think the only reason work axes have any curve to the edge at all is because you need some bite to create a crack. Angle of deflection and the weight of the axe is usually enough to propagate a crack. But getting that initially bite requires less area of contact.
Great job Sir. You have well rounded speeches
I always had the feeling circles were better than triangles, but now I've been convinced. Question, though: you based your entire video on a comic artist's depiction of pointy axes, but I've never heard of that guy or seen other depictions like that? So...points for convincing me that circles trump triangles, but we know they didn't have isosceles shields. They did have square shields and rectangle shields, though. And what about those kite shields? And what about axes that have flat blades, like that felling axe you briefly touched on? It'd hurt like a motherfucker to get hit in the head with a square plate, too...and you know that the flat-edged poleaxes were a thing, so...
Couch On The Internet Yeah, I know. I was just listing different shields n' stuff. :D
The shield with long body is how kite shield normally are made. The rectangular shield still holds the same purpose that a ballistic or riot shield has today, be a personal wall. Flat edges can get jammed in the target easily and then your doing some kind of circular motion to get them out, this happens to axes as well as chainsaws. Polearms ranged from being a sword, spear or axe and sometimes more than one of those. The Heater Shield (the one that is shaped like an acorn) well they were cheap to make like kite shields and had generally the same purpose but heater shields seem to be wider.
yeah no the kite shield is also and infantry shield if you hold it right and position your body right most of you will be covered by it
my guesses why people might choose rectangular shields over round ones: better field of vision, easier to form a shield wall, cheaper to produce.
*****
A straight head axe is like the video said is used for wood as in trees not fighting a warhammer entire purpose is to fight heavy plated armor. The rectangular shield would make a better shield wall than a kite shield.
Rounded is pointy... Got it. Making rounded spearheads now
I saw "axes and shields" and say 11 minutue duration, and i just had to hit the like button. Great work lindy keep it up.
This makes A lot of sense thanks for the info lindy
" Two Circles always touch each other at right-angles.." Why did it sound like a sexy chat up line....
So what about axes with inward curves?
Like halberds?
+Ed What's his name some halberds, yes, and also some Mughal axes as well armsandantiques.com/image/data/2015-05/32015%20(47).JPG
I've wondered that myself actually, I would assume the concept is basically the same though. However it's interesting to note that not many battle axes have that design, which could mean it wasn't a very good design, or it plays into a specific way of using the weapon.
Specialized for armour piercing I'd imagine.
it actually makes sense in the mughal context because they mostly used maille (sometimes less than that and sometimes incorporated plate fragments). With that axe I'd suppose that they would most likely hit with the upper point, which could be efficient against maille. The worse case would be that in which both points connect with the armoured target at the same time which would result in a weak hit, but that is very unlikely to happen (unless you are a lot shorter than the enemy). On an unarmoured target you can hit with just a point or as much surface as possible, it doesn't really matter since it would harm the target very much.
Anyway, it's a good design which totally makes sense in some context, but it works more like an odd warhammer which can also be efficiently used against unarmoured targets than an axe.
good point, i hadnt poked around with this concept before. Now i feel like a more well-rounded person for knowing this
Thank you for producing your videos and bringing me from the ignorance of media to the light of thought. Your work helps people. If I had any request it would be discussing how mud works to slow down armies.
Doesn't curves also imply automatically cutting?
Or does that more apply to swords than axes?
I suspect this is the correct answer - you'll get a slicing action with a curved blade.
Trees don't move so you can hit accurately, and slicing is useless - you want to get the force in perpendicularly to chop - hence the straight axe head.
many straight swords cut excellently. Just look up Skallagrims albion tests. Also Skall has made a video about blade curvature and how it affects handling and performance
Blade curvature actually has negligible effect on cutting capacity unless the curvature is *really* significant as in many talwars. Curved blades are curved largely because they're *single-edged*, the blade naturally tends to bend during the forging of the edge. The "slicing" effect is absolutely minimal, it's a completely different situation from how you slice a piece of meat with a kitchen knife.
+MrPanos2000 It's easier to cut with a curved blade. Or rather, they're more forgiving. A poorly executed cut with a curved sword tends to work better.
To make it clear: "slicing effect" due to the *curvature* of most blades is negligible. Of course you can slice with a sword, that's how you always want to cut, regardless of whether it's straight or curved.
The problem with the first argument you made is that it only works in 2 dimensions, when you ad another one a curved Axe is pretty much the same as a pointed one.
Still better than only 1 dimension.
not if you work in on plane:
if you hit someone with an arced axe on the arm for example,
the arm is in cross section also round.
An axe blade's edge is two-dimensional.
nothing is two dimensional.
but your logic still works in 3 dimensions. The curved edge is more versatile than the pointed one when you consider things like glancing blows etc.
And one of the major arguments of rounded v pointy for a melee weapon is that rounded will be stronger. The pointy axe means the point is more likely to break off altogether.
I never cared about this stuff, but I could listen to you explain it all day (and sometimes do). Keep making the videos. From watching how bad other "guy in front of camera talking" videos, I appreciate how good yours are.
Lindybeige AND Kevin O'Neill, two of my favourite things.
Zarjaz!
Sorry Lindy, not on point this time.
You can impart the same right angles hit with a pointed axe as well as a circular one, just as you could misplace your arc and hit with a glide, not at right angles, with both kinds of axes.
The main reason there's no point on axes is that with such a strong impact, a point would easily and repeatedly get stuck in your target.
Indeed! I think, in regards to maximum impact, what's more important than the angle of contact between two objects, is the relative direction of the momentum vector from the striking object. Maximal impact probably requires the momentum vector to be at right angles to the surface of impact.
In the extreme case for example with the two plates (or billiard balls), if the striking object makes a single point of contact (and by geometry, this will be at right angles) but the momentum vector is roughly tangential to their surfaces, then I don't think there will be any non-trivial impact. The two objects would just 'slide' against each other. At least that's what my intuition tells me anyway, I've never been great at physics...
But wouldn't a pointed shield work well against a spandau?
Depends on the type of pommel being fired out of it.
Ah right, ye that makes sense
how clever to have The Great Courses Plus fond you with thos nice plates for this video Loyd :)
A well rounded argument from you there Lloyd
What about square shields? I mean in large shields.
Roman rectangular shields?
yomauser Yes, or others.
The Scutum protect almost your entire body, but is too large to parry with it, and only gladiators used it as a weapon, striking with the edges.
I believe other shields like the Kite were used as a weapon too, but we don't really know.
Some other not rectangular but pointy shields were the German Duelist shield and the Hungarian shield, were used as defensive weapons.
yomauser Romans in general, were smaller than we are now, so their shield could cover almost all of the body
I think the kite shield was similar in idea to the Scutum - protect much of your body. If you look at the Bayeux Tapestry's mounted knights much of their upper bodies are covered by the broader parts of the shields, and the kite-tail parts cover either their legs or some of the horse's flank. Admittedly the tail does not protect as well as the upper part of the shield, but your leg is not as vital as your torso. And having a rectangular shield may have been unwieldy on a horse, so it may have been a compromise between protection and maneuverability.
why aren't they "full circle"" rounded? looks like a good idea to me...
Lots of extra weight.
Thats how you cut yourself
Also, there is a reason why people say "double edged sword" when referring to something that might be good but isn't that good.
The reason the people use the analogy " double edged sword" or "two edged sword" is because whatever they are talking about will/can do damage in multiple ways,often unintended damage. Forms of cancer treatment have been referred to as a "double edged sword" as it can destroy cancerous cells but it may also damage healthy cells and cause other illness while helping fight the cancer.
You've given me an argument for how to make a sphere sharp, and for that I thank you. You just have to consider the balance between extreme sharpness at a single angle and broader sharpness at more angles
I actually really like the dot visualization for your 'incoming attack' animation. It absurdly cheap and efficient for you and it does the job.