“Sacharissa saw a movement. Boddony had pulled his axe out from under the bench. It was a traditional dwarf axe. One side was a pickaxe, for the extraction of interesting minerals, and the other side was a war axe, because the people who owned the land with the valuable minerals in it can be so unreasonable sometimes.”

@VacuousCat

Жыл бұрын

Show, don't tell.

@ianwinter514

Жыл бұрын

fifth elefant?

@seanheath4492

Жыл бұрын

@@ianwinter514 The Truth. Fifth Elephant does discuss dwarf axes, but in more of a "Ship of Theseus" context.

@grizzlyheart34

Жыл бұрын

What is this from?!

@seanheath4492

Жыл бұрын

@@grizzlyheart34 The Truth, by Terry Pratchett. Book 25 of the Discworld series, but it's perfectly readable on its own.

No experience whatsoever with fighting axes, but over half a century using work axes - Balance is absolutely key for accuracy and economy of use. Some of my axes have had toe damage from previous use which needs to be levelled up. This can mean removing a lot of steel from the blade and sometimes I have had to remove weight from the poll to get the balance feeling right. As you rightly say, balance gives control.

@toddellner5283

Жыл бұрын

And after six or ten hours of swinging it those little unbalances can cause you real pain and damage that keeps you from working

@bigoldgrizzly

Жыл бұрын

@@toddellner5283 Absolutely Todd - use an axe over a decent number of hours and your body pass it's own verdict. Also very much the same for getting handle material and design right. For the discussion in this video. it is not so much about extended repetitive use, but more about the accuracy and subtleties of handling that improve so much with better balance

@toddellner5283

Жыл бұрын

@@bigoldgrizzly Absolutely. I just think Matt's point is even stronger than he said

@christopherneelyakagoattmo6078

Жыл бұрын

I like a double bitted axe for this reason. It has always felt better after a few minutes. If I'm just puttering around knocking a few branches off, any axe or hatchet will do. If I know that I will be chopping for any period straight: even 5-10 minutes; the fatigue difference is huge in my experience. That balance of the double bit takes much less effort to control on the way to the target. It stays on line. If that makes sense.

Another 'point' to consider for wood axes: When you're trying to split wood and the axe gets stuck, sometimes it's easier to grab a big hammer and pound the axe all the way through the wood. Obviously you can't do that if there's a spike or second axe blade on the back of the shaft.

@adambielen8996

Жыл бұрын

Your log also isn't doing a lot of dodging (hopefully) so no need to change directions mid swing.

@johnladuke6475

Жыл бұрын

And opponents don't tend to just let you grab a hammer to finish splitting them if your first blow gets stuck.

@texasbeast239

Жыл бұрын

Bushcraft batoning: If at first ye do nae strike through, hammer and hammer again.

@Lowlandlord

Жыл бұрын

Worth noting that splitting axes (mauls) and felling axes are different things. Double bit felling axes tend to have different blade geometries for each side, one sharper and one more chiseled, for cutting through different parts of a tree, limbs vs. trunk or through knots. There's also an argument of mass vs. speed for when it comes to chopping energy, whereas splitting mauls don't really care for the speed and tend to want the mass.

@ihcterra4625

Жыл бұрын

I have a splitting maul, which has a splitting blade on one side and a hammer on the other and I have a chopping axe with a much thinner blade. The maul is about 5 lbs and the chopper is about 2 lbs. The maul doesn’t get stuck very often because the edge and angle are so wide, but sometimes I will use a wedge and the hammer side of the maul to split stubborn logs.

Spot on, Matt! While I've always agreed on the multiple-tools factor, I've *long* argued that hitting a moving target is a lot harder--especially one-handed--w/o the balance factor. Nice to know that someone as knowledgeable as you speculates the same.

A forest fire fighting ax, also called a pulaski, has a second blade, which is turned 90°, so it's oriented similarly to the blade of a hoe. The reason there is that the trunk, branch, or vine you want to cut could be laying at any angle and the two blades give you the choice of whether to make vertical or horizontal cuts.

If you want to concentrate the hitting power, you reduce the footprint (or axe print in this case) of the striking surface. It makes sense to move mass from the blade side to the back rather than just getting rid of it. If you have a hunk of metal back there, you might as well make it useful.

@jan_kisan

Жыл бұрын

yet another valid point, yep

@JCPRuckus

Жыл бұрын

Not really a factor, the curve of the axe blade already does this. If it hits anything hard enough that it can't chop into it, then the furthest point of the curve is all that impacts anyway. It's not about concentrating the force. It's that blades are more likely to glance off plate armor than hammers or spikes on anything but a perfectly square impact.

I know this wasn't the focus, but I like that you mentioned weapons get in stuck. I am starting to think this is one of those factors that modern people (who hopefully aren't actually smashing weapons into living targets lol) easily miss, but actually might have been quite a serious factor in reality. After that recent "Is There Perfect Sword Blade Width to Thickness Ratio?" video, I wondered if part of the reason for less broad, but thicker blades (like say, most Japanese swords) might be because they're less likely to get wedged in a target. A broader, thinner blade of the same mass would encounter less resistance in the cut, but would probably be more likely to get wedged; more like taking a fighting axe to cut down a tree

@starchitin

Жыл бұрын

Luckly, there's no need to go at living targets to know how easily blades can get stuck in targets.... just go chop some wood. Anyone that's ever split logs or branches knows how easily an axe or knife can get stuck, there's no reason for armor or flesh to be any different. Heck, your ex's car door would prolly be a pretty good analog for armor if you wanted to see how weapons got stuck in that... if you don't mind the police having questions for you afterwards.

@bobashmore6442

Жыл бұрын

I can attest to "modern people miss"ing this concept. I was in a Dao training class and our instructor was desperately trying to get most of the people in the class to "stop your blade movement here, not here" for a particular movement, it was a mantra throughout the entire lesson because literally no one was doing it (fortunately I had previous sword experience and actually got it right, but I digress). Finally one of the students who he had corrected multiple times asked him why that was so important, it was only a small difference. The reply was delivered dead on and immediately, "Because if you stop your blade movement here" demonstrated that, "your sword is going to be stuck in his neck. If you stop your blade movement here" again demonstrated that, "your sword will not be stuck in his neck." Strangely, after that, everyone was getting it right.

@toddellner5283

Жыл бұрын

@@starchitin I have disassembled a lot of sheep and pigs and chopped some wood. Your point is valid, but wood and flesh or flesh and bone don't have exactly the same properties and require different tools to get through cleanly

@starchitin

Жыл бұрын

@@toddellner5283 Yea....so?

@mikejunt

Жыл бұрын

Bodies are a lot worse than wood in this regard because they have uneven resistance in the differences between flesh and bone and so on. Take an axe or club or anything and hit something composed of various elements of different hardnesses and levels of resistance and you will see how rapidly you get tangled up in the softer material after hitting a concealed harder element inside and having your edge deflect. When I was a kid I used to make toy swords out of wood or metal pipes and go out in the extensive woods around my dad's house and hit things - you pick up on that kind of difference in mixed-material targets very quickly. Especially with an axe type weapon that is more likely to attack the center of mass directly than a sword might be, it's clearly a problem that would arise.

I'd suggest that double sided weapons exist for the same reason as double sided tools, which is if you are involved in an chaotic and swift sort of activity (like fighting fires) and it's easier to spin the tool than to pull out a different one for a different activity, and the second is ease of access to further tools you might require. ie you have a limited carrying capacity and might want more tools than is easy to carry. Why don't tools generally have double functions is that it's just less effective and often less efficient in a specific activity than a dedicated tool As an example a double sided ax is heavier, and you cant hammer on the back to split a log (for instance), their advantage is that the have two sharp sides at the beginning, and if one gets too dull from chopping wood you can flip it around and still carry on work with a nice sharp edge before having to go back to service it.

It's funny that you mention this alignment characteristics of asymmetrical blades- I've recently been looking into the same thing with khukuris as their centre of mass also isn't aligned with the centre axis of the grip. While potentially more pronounced on axes, the same situation arises on nearly all curved swords and also on single edged blades such as falchions due to thicker spines than edges etc. I think you might be getting the mechanics of it a little muddled when describing it as a weathervane though. Let's take the Bullowa axe for example. - If you hold the blade sticking out 90 degrees to the side and accelerate it forward, the centre of mass wants to stay in the same place and resists the motion. The handle resists less and so moves more. This causes it to rotate around the centre of mass somewhat. Unless the user resists this force, the blade edge ends up pointing closer to the rear of the blade. In this scenario it has a tendency to come out of alignment. You showed this in your horizontal movements but the same thing is happening in the vertical plane. - If the blade is swung while the edge is perfectly aligned forward there will be no turning force in hand. In reality though this is unlikely. Any small angular deviation or arcing swing will cause a rotation force in the hand, which will intensify as the blade edge gets closer to perpendicular to the direction of the swing. - While gravity does help an axe point downwards on a downwards swing, it only helps align the edge that way with a force of 9.8m/s. I would think that in a swing the user accelerates the blade with significantly higher forces than this leading to a net instability in a downwards strike. - While this sounds like it would be bad for the user, the turning force is not overwhelmingly high and serves to give feedback that helps guide the user into correct edge alignment- without looking a user can tell if the edge is aligned and correct it even with a round handle. More twisting= poor alignment & Less twisting= better alignment. -On a Tulwar for example the opposite is true. Here the Centre of Mass is behind the handle axis rotation instead of in front of it and as a result it does naturally self align like a weathervane. I'm unsure of the feedback a user would feel in such a situation. I feel it would be difficult to actually notice. -When moving the blade backwards in recovery or leadup to a swing this phenomenon is reversed. A Bullowa or Khukuri self aligns and a Tulwar unaligns. I'm unsure of if the is relevant in a martial context. - If the force of gravity pulling downwards was the primary factor in edge alignment in asymmetrical blades, a tendency to lose alignment in vertical strikes would be noted on blade styles with trailing COM. As far as I'm aware this isn't a noted phenomenon. -on a broader and purely speculative note I think that asymmetrical swords are viewed by many as being more intuitive cutters vs straighter blades. Potentially this could be one contributing factor. Great video and discussion as always- Take care, Andrew and the team at Kailash

Great video Matt! For more axe goodness Hellish Quart just added a guy with a Shepard's Axe which I find to be very interesting. As far as the back side of the axe I know in the case of the tomahawk that it was more for utility. There are lots of stories of Indigenous tribes from the Northeast of America being used as scouts and how with two smaller hatchet style tomahawks (one hammer and one pick), a long knife and waterskin plus a few rations they could travel great distances by living off the land and using stars to navigate. The hammer tomahawk seemed to be the main tool and the one with a pick seems to be specially used for winter situations, literally as an ice pick according to what I have read though less for climbing and more for saving yourself in case you go in trying to cross a frozen river. I don't know how accurate these claims are as it could be tall tales of colonial settlers or them misunderstanding. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me though, some of the bigger more organized confederations had pretty extensive trade networks and had no beast of burden to move things, so it was all done by people on foot. Understanding how to hunt/forage and set up camps as you walked between settlements was a necessary part of life.

@chrisplatten2293

Жыл бұрын

From a climbers perspective, the pick of an ice axe is paired with either an adze or a hammer. Longer hafted 'walkers' axes typically have a pick and adze. The pick for self arrest and the adze for cutting steps on steeper sections. The adze can also be used for self arrest in soft or powdery snow if the pick fails to do the job, although it's a bit of desperation move. Climbers with two axes have one of each type. The hammer is used to hammer in spikes called pitons. The adze as for walkers. Step cutting is not really common now as we used crampons attached to boots rather than hobnailed boots that have some (but not a lot) of built in grip.

@howitzer551

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisplatten2293 Very interesting! Though as I said I haven't heard of it being used for climbing just for saving yourself on the ice. I see no reason why they could not have used the skills you mentioned. My limited knowledge is about Indigenous peoples of the Northeast of the US as that is where I lived and what I was interested in when I was younger. To be honest you could be totally right I just don't know. From what I have learned lots of information has been lost not just because of cultural destruction but also not understand on how knowledge was passed on. A lot of the groups had an oral tradition split between men and women (done differently tribe to tribe) and I don't just mean men teaching men and women teaching women. The was different knowledge considered important to the next generation kept by both groups. Think like schools were the students stay seated and different teachers rotate into class. This means even when Europeans tried to understand and record things, because of their own bias, they would only ask the men and maybe as much as half of what that tribe considered important wasn't written down.

@Spear_of_the_Raven_Ash

Жыл бұрын

Or possibly busting ice to melt for water?

@johnladuke6475

Жыл бұрын

@@howitzer551 A side thought about your "beast of burden" point. Though you'd certainly have to carry a load manually overland, if you were smart you'd only carry it as far as the nearest canoe.

@howitzer551

Жыл бұрын

@@johnladuke6475 Yes very much so, but for a lot of the recreated routes there is still a lot of portage that needs to occur. So, its paddle for a while, get out, and carry the canoe with all the stuff loaded in it over land to the next body of water, then repeat until you get to where you are going. While I am sure there were foot paths on the more traveled parts of the routes (near the start and the end) you are still physically carrying the stuff over hills and through woods. I did one of the supposed routes in Canada (it's probably not that close how it was back then) and while being in fairly good shape and use to travel, I wouldn't say it was hard, but it was by no means easy.

Nice vid as usual. Another possible reason might be that if the blade gets dull you can turn the weapon around and keep fighting.

I really don't like the twisting that comes from the single side, so I think you have a good point here

I think, that if more scolars (and non-scolars) would dare to speak out loud their "pet theories", more truths about the past would be found sooner. Very interesting, Matt. Good points. 👍👍💪

@Vykk_Draygo

Жыл бұрын

I think they do. You only hear them if you run in those circles. My wife is a researcher (PhD in nutrition), so I have been privy to many interesting discussions from people in related fields (such as biomed and exercise phys). They are quite willing to speak about their thoughts, and encourage others to look into it and fund more research.

@gearandalthefirst7027

Жыл бұрын

Every academic I've ever met has been foaming at the mouth to talk about their pet theories. You don't hear them because most people don't care and so it's not profitable for said academics to be given a platform. But trust me, when you invite a bunch of grad students over, you're gonna hear all sorts of hypotheses.

I think your theories are valid. I also think that there are scenarios where you might be looking at it backwards. Specifically, if I want a pick/spike, some extra mass can help it penetrate. If I need extra weight but I don't want to change the dimensions of my spike, the most logical thing to do is add that weight on the other side, and that can be done with an axe blade or a hammer poll. There may be some contexts where that is a helpful way to add weight to an axe blade without changing its dimensions, but I have a harder time thinking up a scenario where that makes sense to me.

Matt is on about shafts again! Good info for those who have never handled axes or splitting mauls 😎

Great point! I love a fighting axe. Love the real world experience you always bring to the table.

Excellent point. I agree 100%. I like the spike on my hawks, not just to access grubs in old logs, but also to dig a trench next to the fire to put hot coals into for cooking over.

This has been a thought in my head as well for some time, loved the video!

Axes that have recently interested me are the Rhaetian hellebardenaxt, proto-hurlbats, and shepherd's axes. Each often has a second bit.

Another excellent musing that I would've never thought of! I figured that, clearly, the main benefit to a double-bladed (and preferably two-handed) axe is that you can swing it around in a spiral and cut through enemies in a whirlwind of steel. Very realistic, of course. For axes with a blade and a spike, I thought the spike would be better at defeating armor, but as you said, both projections would have a chance of getting stuck.

I think there's another reason for having the blade. Based on my experience with Martial Arts, these fights didn't last ALL DAY. A good portion of that time would be in camp, where one would need to chop wood, make stakes, and all kinds of other little chores. This wouldn't apply to EVERY axe, but I think a lot of them. And let's face it, if you're a soldier in the field, there's a GREAT lot of kit you have to carry just to handle the basics of living (food, spare clothes, tent, etc., etc.). Having something that was both a good tool (the blade side) and a good weapon (the spikey bit) would just be a bit less crap you had to carry. The balance point... yup, I'd think that was good to. Even to this day "camp hatchets" have a hammer on one side, blade on the other.

@ninetyZeven

Жыл бұрын

Both the blade and the spike as multi purpose tools, yes. Good point.

@Echo_419

Жыл бұрын

Wood-splitting axes and human-splitting axes have different blades and excel in their specific area and aren't the greatest in the opposite.

@ninetyZeven

Жыл бұрын

@@Echo_419 Mmh.

I wonder if another consideration of the spike being more dominant than a hammer end is for use against shields when in formations. Your hypothesis seems really valid especially since most European axes never adapted to a forward canted shafts like you see with the more recent wood chopping axes, the curvature helping with alignment and weight distribution. My background is with Filipino Kali and there are forward curved sword blades and axes that really help with chopping and slicing through meat and bone as well as dense foliage. Interesting idea!

Ballance matters a lot. With a good wood chopping axe you do have a hammer face that has a lot of weight and balances the head. A longer projection will be lighter than the short hammer face that is compact in order to add more weight.

@Shitballs69420

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely agree, especially if you start to look at things through a more smithing orientated manufacture, and really look at where the mass of metal has been pushed and pulled, distributing mass often rather than removing it. And then yea just use a little common sense physics principles and it starts to be pretty clear why things have the form they do.

@toddellner5283

Жыл бұрын

A lot of logging axes have heavy, short hammer faces. A lot of the killing people tools have lighter but longer ones. I bet the torque balances out pretty close for well designed ones of both sorts.

I think that the main reason for adding a hammer or spike to the axe head was armor. In the Hastings era there wasn't as much armor on the battlefield, and what armor there was, wouldn't protect very well against the impact damage. Flash forward a few decades and we start seeing plate armor, thus you're going to need a "can opener".

My first thought was balance, in fact. Having a secondary striking point seems like the side-effect rather than the intended outcome.

@yamiyomizuki

Жыл бұрын

considering that plenty of fighting axes right through history had nothing on the back, the balance clearly wasn't that big of an issue. also seeing as pretty much every back projection was some type of weapon, I think it's fairly safe to say having a second weapon was the main goal.

I totally think you're on to something there...first one sided "battle axe" I handled felt so lopsided to the one side that I immediately thought "oh man I want a spike next time"...100% agree

Something I had never considered. I was always hung up on the anti armor mentality of any projection from the back of the axe and didn't consider the difference in balance. Probably from o ly have experience practicing and handling single-sided axes. Thanks for all your work, Mr. Easton.

First reason I thought of. And I suppose that back additional weight adds not only balance but strenght in penetrating the target, as a longer projectile and not only by front leverage power. And maybe with that back leverage you could help with your feet to free your stucked axe, but I don't know if I'd try though, apart from back hammer option 😁

Nail meet head. Well done Matt, often forgotten but really important, a counter weight to balance a weapon, like a heavy pommel on a sword.

@yamiyomizuki

Жыл бұрын

historical sword pommels weren't all that heavy and do almost nothing to provide counterweight.

One reason might also be the proliferation of armor (or just a helmet really). While a dane axe can chop just fine through flesh and bone, add mail on top and later plate and you might have issues. So adding a hammer or spike might have gotten more popular with the increased use of armor.

@williamchamberlain2263

Жыл бұрын

Yes

I reckon you're spot on the money. Balance is extremely important with any front heavy weapon.

Hi Matt. Great blogs . 👍

Interestingly enough looking at the mechanics of poi/kiwido is how I came to a similar conclusion. Since if they don't have tail they twist while you swing them around, but with a tail they point in 1 direction and it is easier to controle and direct them.

@Scholagladiatoria Some of what you're describing with the alignment and pleasantness to use, has to do with LaGrange points and the mechanics of circular motion and mass. It's such a fascinating topic. I first learned about it when researching orbital mechanics for RPG'ing. There are mathematical reasons behind that pleasantness to use. I'm pretty sure that it also has something to do with the sweet spot on a blade for cutting.

Very interesting idea, i am glad to watch the video, thanks

It will help with balance and COG But the main thing I see is it retains or even adds mass to the impact face while reducing blade size. The examples you use show a massive reduction in head size, less entanglement and easier to wield but if a one sided head were just smaller the mass would be reduced to a third. When retaining that mass a spike or hammer then provides an option for armoured targets.

i think that thought is spot on. because to use an axe effectively stops being a specialized martial skill if they are balanced. with balance you can use virtually the same knowledge and training you got from handling swords and/or maces for handling axes. i personally think balancing axes is a testament to a generalizing of fighting styles and hints at the increasing professionalism of martial arts through history. in essence, you can train a person in just one fighting style and expect this person to be effective, even if they wield fundamentally different weapons in regards of the damage-type. balancing enables that.

I find your argument sound. I went outside and messed around with my axes before commenting and found it to absolutely accurate. It's much harder to change directions quickly without something aiding the balance. And now I need to go make a tomahawk for myself

the way my old history teacher described it "practicality, with a poleax, if you blunt your axe, youve a great big lump of steel to cave there heads in with on the other side, once you get a chance, sharpen your axe up and off you go again"

Very interesting observation! It also adds mass.

Good point regarding counter weight balance but also to consider the development of the armor against weapons 🤔

Fought with axes for better than 20 years in SCA combat. You are 100% correct about the back projection adds an enormous amount of nimbleness and controllability to a one-handed axe or a 2 handed in single combat.

I've speculated why we tend to see a beak or pick on one handed axes as opposed to a pronounced blunt face like poleaxes. The reason might be because the pick focuses the energy of the blow more efficiently than a wider hammer head, and this is more important when you have less weight behind the blow. We also see some indo-persian tabar axes that do not have a pick but have a very short blunt face, sometimes this side has an added decorative figure on top of the blunt structure. In this case it seems to not be a striking surface but rather a way to add weight to the blow or even as you say an important counterweight. Contrasting this to the late forms of all-metal flanged maces, while not extremely heavy these still end up being bigger and heavier than warhammers or warpicks, the advantage being the unilateral striking surface and having additional weight to deal with advances in armor. We don't see these flanged mace heads on long polearms because they seem to be too heavy compared to the more efficient per weight symmetrical pronged hammer and beak shape.

Good point Matt. I think if somebody carried an axe, it could easily be put to use as a building or demolition-breaching tool at some point. The blade - hammer combination, I think, is very useful for building purposes, it also allows batoning another tool like a wedge, the blade - hole probably better fit to demolition, but there are several building tasks for which you may desire a hole.

I would also consider that it helps to concentrate the weight of the head into a smaller cutting area on the axe blade. If you want a head of a given weight and put it all to one side of the shaft you end up with maybe a bigger or thicker blade than is actually wanted.

Really interesting point. I wonder if there's a significant difference between when the back protrusions started appearing on one-handed and two-handed axes. I imagine the torque problem would be worse with the heavier head of the two-handed weapon and maybe also more important when you don't have a shield to compensate for fumbling when changing direction. On the other hand, you're more likely to have a single-handed back-up weapon, which means that you're likely less bothered about your weapon getting stuck, but who knows.

@yamiyomizuki

Жыл бұрын

having 2 hands on the weapon makes it easier to deal with the torque

Hello sir! Excellently presented as always. Some thoughts I’ve had re multi-faced weapons. I thought a logical reason was for breakage and function. So if one face is cracked mid battle, one had a backup without having to draw another. (As you touched on). Regarding the “spike getting stuck”. I was thinking the pick getting stuck may have been advantageous; if a footman was trying to unmount (?) a horseman, the spike sticking would have been helpful pulling them off the mount. Or, potentially manipulating an opponent’s shield if you had were fighting with a second weapon.

An interesting and good theory, and the corollary is that if a single-headed weapon was actually superior for speed and control, people would probably just use that - you're not going to be suddenly surprised in a large scale battle by the equipment your enemies have (what? they have armour? nobody told me!) and you'll just leave the cleaving-axe back in the camp in favour of the war-spike. The pipe-attachment in particular seems to suggest that you can have literally anything on the other side, you just want *something* there, because it's better than nothing! However! A further element is just that increasing the mass at the top of the handle, generally speaking, results in a harder hitting (more energy) strike due to increased inertia. But if you put all that weight on one side, it's as you say - wonky swings will result if you're trying to be tricky. So it's a real win-win - a more balanced weapon, hitting slightly harder, with the option of an alternate attack mode that can really ruin a greathelm owner's day. Also (and finally) you can't even buy a regular at-home work hammer with a single head, they don't exist. And that's not a weapon (usually) that requires dexterity and guile. Just a little bit more inertia for the strike, and possibly, to keep the strike on target too. Edit: Sledgehammers. Always double-headed. No alternate mode the majority of the time (unlike say the example battle axes or a claw hammer, which is about as good at removing nails as getting them in). There's just something about the need for more mass at the top of the handle, and the correct way to distribute that is 50-50, every time.

I think you're overthinking this, Matt. If I'm cutting wood and have a bad swing, I don't need to take a back-swing with my armour-piercing spike to prevent the tree from murdering me. I just swear a little and blame the funny-shaped branch and take my time to get a _real good_ swing at it. I don't think any ideas you discussed are fundamentally wrong, but the answer to not having a second projection on most tool axes is because there's time to put the axe down and take up a separate tool. Notice that you mention a fire axe as an example of a tool axe with a rear spike; which is because it's for use in emergencies, when you can't be carrying multiple implements and switching them around.

@LongMax

Жыл бұрын

There are also just different technologies for making forged axes. With the welded method, the workpiece is actually folded in half and then the blade is welded on, there is simply not the right amount of metal on the back to add to make a spike or something out of it. With the piercing method, when a hole for the ax handle is punched in the workpiece, metal remains in the back part, it can be left "as is" or shaped into a different shape.

I like that battleaxe you are holding at the beginning.

Matt!! I agree about the head and the centering of the mass. Consider that it's easier to push away poles and spears with a more centralized weight and the spike would add a larger area to block with. How does one block with an ax? Say your shield is busy. I would guess that the pushing away of polarms became increasingly more important as time went on.

I don't know that there is a main point to having something protruding from the back. I think there are a lot of potential benefits, and relatively few drawbacks, and while some axe wielders may have a single reason that it's worth the extra weight and cost, others would have a different reason for the same conclusion. The added weight can also be a benefit. Once you get it moving it hits harder.

Axe to penetrate, Hammer to bludgeon plate armor. Pick for attacking weak links in chainmail or armpits or other gaps in plate mail armor.

No weapons expert but i've chopped my share of wood and swung maybe millions of swings on various hammers. To me just from looking at the examples you held up, it's about balance but more about dealing with glancing blows while keeping the weight needed. For instance it looked like the flat bladed axes had a flat hammer behind, so that back end weight distribution is applied all along the blade, circular axe faces had a centralised back spike, and the top-edge axe faces like the dane had the spike along the top. So the back weight location/type is set for the swing/contact point...now if weight was all at the front a glancing blow off a shield or armour would be pretty wild because everything is in the leading point...putting it behind however means the glancing blow is actually counter-levering that back weight.

This was great and I found myself anticipating the balance point before you reached it, but one point I expected you to make that you did not has to do with the backhand strike. Having to rotate your weapon shaft 180 degrees to reverse a cut or threaten your opponent from a position where your blade is not indexed in the right direction is a problem, and having something threatening on the backhand not only gives you more options in how you make a primary strike, it gives you more options in any given position or location of your weapon. You don't see quite as many labrys-style double-headed axes with identical blades on both sides, but those axes only make sense in the latter two contexts, and not in the options context - and yet they definitely got made and existed.

@johnladuke6475

Жыл бұрын

The other though about backhand strikes is that the tree isn't going to kill you if you pause a moment to bring the axe around for another forward swing.

Your points were all good. I'd like to add this: wobble factor. I lived 10 years in West Africa where traditional axes had long tangs driven through a heavy knob in the wooden handle. They were difficult and dangerous to use. Not only do they not index well, but once they strike they tend to wobble badly. The relatively shorter blade with a decent counterweight in western style axes makes a world of difference. I also did American fur trade living history for decades and have spent a fair bit of time with tomahawks. They're not as dramatic as traditional African axes, but they still don't bite as solidly and steadily as a back-heavy axe. This may be more of a chopping perspective than a slashing/fighting perspective, but having used them all to work ... I prefer the back weight.

I *love* these kinds of geeky discussions about weapons. Which brings me to my question - are there any modern academic fields that specialize in weapon history? I figured with your name and professional research you'd have some idea where to point someone looking for a Master's program or something similar. I know Hoplology was a thing many years ago but never really took off. Military Science? Archaeology? History? Museum Curation? I've looks at several programs at multiple institutions and have never been satisfied with their offerings since I'd like to really focus on actual tools and techniques of the various martial disciplines.

Definitely a noticeable feature of swinging tools or weapons with this sort of balance. I had never considered that a reason for two sided war axes, but that actually really seems like a viable explanation. I always doubted how often you would actually take the time to switch around to a hammer or spike in combat.

There is also an increase in the rotational moment of inertial. If you strike something that has an angle to it or with the edge not well aligned, the axe tends to twist in your hands and a lot of energy is lost from the blow. It there is a long spike out the other side of the handle, the moment of inertia is doubled increasing the force applied to the target. This would be a reason to put a longish narrow spike on the back side. Nothing to do with using the axe but: Having just put a new handle on my splitting maul, I observed that the part of the process where you make the wood almost fit in the hole and then bang it in there is a little harder because of the lopsided weight of the head. You want the force to push the wood directly in line with the hole and not try to twist as it does so.

In his 'Strategikon' the Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice & the 'Tactica' of the Eastern Emperor Leo VI the Wise, 3 types of axes (which is considered a infantry weapon) are mainly used. The normal Axe with one blade (the 2-bladed one-handed axe (this allows for some followups) & the pick-axe shape (the axe Matt uses at the beginning of his video). The pick-axe is the most recommended for the Eastern Roman soldiers (who are in general better equipped than their most of their enemies). The reason is that it enabled the weapon to have some anti-armor capabilities as well. The toughest enemy of the Eastern Roman Empire at that time was the Persians, who also employed heavy infantry & very heavy cavalry (both empires had the famous Cataphract troops). The Persians also used pick-axes for the aforementioned reason. Also the reason why both armies favored maces (for the cavalry as well, dealing with heavily armored troops).

I think you have a point, definitely worth some more study.

It also gives a solid block over the hand when choking up. But yes balance is a great point.

I think versatile options is the main point. Added maneuverability is a bonus.

That's crazy because I was JUST thinking about the legendary Japanese axe the Ono!

@toddellner5283

Жыл бұрын

Called that because it was the last thing that people who faced it said "O No!" 😃

That actuely makes a lot of sense, but I also like to add something. One other great reason for a back spike or hammer is that you can actuely use it in back end strikes. Sometimes it's quicker to just strike with the back of your weapons head and having a spike or hammer there would defintly be a usefull feature.

@johnladuke6475

Жыл бұрын

And when cutting wood, the tree won't murder you if it takes you a moment to reposition for another forward swing.

@joeyvanhaperen7715

Жыл бұрын

@@johnladuke6475 you get it. 👍

That spiked tomahawk was also used for bushcraft utility. On the frontier the tomahawk was used more as a working tool Everyday… so if someone was foraging for edible roots… that was their pick… if they weren’t using a shovel or digging stick of some sort.

The spiked back also adds additional length for knocking weapon etc... out of the way.

Interesting point on this topic, I'm not sure if that is the main reason, but i can see where ur coming from and will now have to experiment with the axes i have, lol

To me this sounds like two points that have a lot of synergy. By adding a spike or hammer to the back you give yourself options, and since those options come with added weight anyway you improve the balance which in turn makes it easier to bring those options into play if needed. So, you get a double benefit out of the additional weight.

All important points. One could get used to having the mass forward of the haft but mostly it seems having that extra tool on hand would be important.

This spike can also be found on war hammers, calling raven's beak or in French bec de corbin. The Raven's Beak can pierce plate armor. Therefore, a war hammer is considered an unknightly weapon.

You've changed my mind about a spike on a tomahawk.

I'm thinking when they start having chainmail, the head of the axe will be like sword in that it won't be able to cut as easily through the mail. However, spike will be able to focus the strike to break the mail rings and then penetrate through the gambeson. So to fight people without mail armor, you will use the axe head to chop their limbs and use the spike vs people with mail armor. Then when the full plate become more common, they add hammer head so you can deal concussive damage and don't break the spike or the axe head. Knightly Poleaxe has spike at the top so they too can deal with people with chainmail.

I think your experience with wielding these weapons draws a clear answer to the question. For instance, once 2 sided axes became the norm, was there a tendency to go back to a one side format? Probably not.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The chainmail armor used in medieval Europe could explain why battleaxes have a spike on the back. The spike is better at punching through the rings of the chainmail. American Indians didn't encounter chainmail though. Their tomahawks (sp) have spikes on the bac, or pipe bowls (useless in combat) on the back just like the European axes do however. The only explanation I can think of is the balance issue that you brought up.

I've never wielded an axe intended for combat, but I have tried a few old hammers. Even ones without a claw (IME) pretty much universally have two identical faces. And I can't really see why unless it's a balance thing.

@eightbittemplar7394

Жыл бұрын

Good point.

Curiously the one reason I would guess wasn't really mentioned. If you hack armor and helmets and swords and shields I would guess that the blade of the Axe is going to be quite dull at the end of the battle if you happen to fight long time. I don't really know how important keeping the edge is for a battleaxe but I would have guessed that's a good reason. It would be interesting to see a simulation of what would happen to the edge of an axe if it would be used in a long combat.

I drive a forklift for a living. There are a good 30 of us in the warehouse driving these forklifts, nominally 24 hours a day, shift and shift. Many of my coworkers don't notice e.g. rubbing in the mast, or when the quality of the ride changes because a wheel lost a bit of material, or when the SOUND of their lift changes, whether it be moving around or lifting up or down. In training, we're told in no uncertain terms not to turn our forklifts when they are fully extended, that raising and lowering should be completed before turning, and shown some of those forklift fail videos, but guess what you see people doing all the time? Turning into the racks. These are racks that go up to about 35 feet, with forklifts that can reach that high, and boy if you screw up, and that thing tips, you better hope there's no one within ... 35 feet. That's your impact footprint. But people do it all the time. My point is that I think you're putting way too much thought into this, sir. I think most people don't notice the differences - minor especially but sometimes major - in the things they use day to day. Tod commented in a video a few weeks ago about sword hilts not quite fitting, and them being stuff with something to make them fit until they're sold, whereupon at first use, they start to rattle. I don't think most guys in an army had any clue their sword was rattling. I don't think most guys in an army would notice the difficulty inherent in changing direction of their swing. I think most of them wouldn't change the direction of their swing. I don't say these are unobservant people, but I think when it comes to your job, there are a lot of folks who just aren't going to put any extra thought or effort into it. Oh, one might think, but this could be life or death. Nah, 25% casualties is already a rout. There's a very good chance someone won't even have to fight in the entirety of a war, why would they put time and effort into their gear beyond what they absolutely have to? Why would they spend more time on training than they are absolutely required to do? Humans, en masse, tend to be path of least resistance critters, and sometimes I feel like you and Tod and Shad and many others overlook that bit. It isn't the most effective or efficient way to live life, but there's a very good chance of making it through life that way, army or not. So, WHO cared enough to be a part of those kinds of changes you reference?

i would love to see an example of the early pollaxe or late dane axe with a projection on the back. are there any surviving examples?

I agree with the balance of the axe. When I camp, I use an axe with a hammer back (it's a camping axe so not as deadly as a polearm) but even with just between chopping firewood and hammering tent pegs down I feel the balance. I've used just regular camping hatchets in the past without the "hammer" feature on the back and always thought I was going to hurt myself. Course I'm just using this as a tool so as a weapon it makes sense for balance. But as a weapon a pike or a hammer side also gives you options in combat without switching weapons. But as a civilian using one (and maybe regular folks on the road used as such) I get the balance of the 2 tools in 1.

I think the points are valid. I would add that for tool axes, having a second blade is useful for situations where one will get dulled before the day's work is done. The same logic may apply in battle: if you get a chip or nasty burr on your axe, you may need something else to threaten the enemy. Protracted engagements would make this more of an issue -- more of a soldier's problem than a raider's problem.

Matt i went to a museum in oxford recently for the minataur exibition. The minoans had double headed bronze axes 6 thousand years ago. Pretty mad huh.

A pleasure to watch as always. Thanks Matt for your thoughts and insight on edged weapons.🗡️🪓💯👍👍⚓⚓🇺🇲🇺🇲

Early ship board spike axes were for battle and ship use, tearing through planks with the spike and working with rope.

as soon as you asked the question i thought it was to do with balance and attack speed, didnt have a clue why but your theory in my belief is the most likely. it takes a lot of skill and practice to swing and use the dane axe, its like the bow and the cross bow.

That "single bits get squirrely when you try to change direction" was my first thought before I clicked on your video. Because they Do, and it is disconcerting.

It also makes possible to hit on reversal without having to change the handling. And you can block an attack with that extra metal.

I'd say, having two options great for specific situations, but having a second option at all when one becomes unavailable due to damage or whatever does keep you in the fight when the main blade breaks. It's kind of It's own spare weapon, without having to actually carry another spare.

Also gives you a backhand strike and more versatility for hooking and pulling

No doubt you have a valid point. I would wager that it’s a combination of things but a balanced weapon is a must to be effective. I love your idea.

Balance is important also regarding the butt plate/spike, to provide greater grip range. Consider, twirling, spinning, flipping end to end or tossing from one hand to another. Not only were jugglers popular, but you can bet the Tourny Knights put on a good show.

Both observations reinforce each other. The spike on the back adds balance, but also you'd really need that balance if you ever wanted to use the spike or hammer on the back end.

I grew up working in the woods of New England, my favorite tool was the double bitted ax, symmetrical blades, one sharp for cutting the other dull for splitting.......... and as Matt notes, BALANCE.

@trooperthatsall5250

Жыл бұрын

This ^^^ balance, the tool was more than likely used due roles, a working tool with farming then used in battle. Balance along with the length of the axe shaft is used for throwing on the hight of the user. These have a large face with a shorter shaft. ~trooper

I think your theory has some merit, but I also think the spike may have been added to puncture chainmail and later plate armour (like an arrow point) at close quarters. Obviously my theory wouldn't hold true for the tomahawk, but as a young firefighter I was always told the traditional British belt axe came from the Navy and it's boarding axe as early firefighters were sailors and dockers. The boarding axe was also traded with the Native Americans and over time the two axes morphed into the varieties we see today.

I also reckon that it is a way to have weight added to a center of gravity where you want it without changing the blade geometry. Like the Dane ax where you want a really fine blade but it has enough mass and leverage to have impact. If you want the weight of a splitting ax but the geometry of a chopping ax, it makes sense to put the weight in-line. Balance, weight without making the blade too fat or far from the center of gravity, and versatility at the cost of...well. More weight further away from the hand.

A back projection also helps against the blade twisting on impact & as a result better 'bite'. Think ice skater twirling. Arms in spins fast arms out spins slowly. This is because mass extended out from the point of rotation resists spinning. The further away from the point of rotation the mass is the more spinning is resisted; hence slower spin when arms are extended.

Indeed, balance and to make them more versatile and to give them more heft to the swing. If we go back to the stone age where axehammers were a common fighting tool, the back was used to give balance but also to give a more crushing blow. The blunt side of an axehammer configuration could also be used to cripple enemy soldiers to capture and enslave them. Going into the bronze age the axes evolved to have spikes to defeat bronze plate armour of course. With the way how warfare changed aftwards and resources becoming more precious with the iron age this trend died down until the development of plate armour again.

Modern fighting axes like the SOG hatchet which is basically like the Swedish axe shown earlier often have spikes on them, supposedly designed to be used against steel helmets. I doubt they'd work against a Kevlar helmet but the spike if sharp would work against clothing that could stop the axe from cutting and inflict a nasty puncture. That might be useful vs mail even

Maybe they wanted to increase mass without increasing striking area, (or reducing area and just keeping the existing mass), so they put rhe material on the back side, and while they were adding material there they decided to make it into something useful like a hammer or a spike.

Axe blades of course also do chip, blunt and break with use. A sturdy spike serves as a fine and more durable backup point of delivery.