Hello all,

I'm new here at myArmoury, and to collecting arms in general. I just got this custom axehead done, which I'm really satisfied with, but I'm not sure what kind of axe it would be classified as? It was meant to be a daneaxe, based upon my own depiction but inspired by various re-enactment axes I've seen, but after seeing some historical daneaxes I don't think it looks like one. Perhaps more like an early Middle Ages longaxe? What do you guys think? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

- Sonni

I think it does look like a viking longaxe, which became famous as a daneaxe, but it is not my timeframe.

Looks a bit like a Peterson type M, but not dead on.

Did Paul Binns make that one?

Johan Schubert Moen

Thanks for your help. I'm glad I wasn't completely off. :)

Johan S. Moen wrote:

Did Paul Binns make that one?

Nick Johnson of knivesbynick.co.uk made it. It's shown in the historical axes section. ;)

- Sonni

It's a longaxe. The profile deviates a bit from most extant examples, as the "toe", or top point is a bit more pronounced than in most examples, and the socket lacks pointed flanges, but it's an axe, and it's certainly got long haft. It's certainly historically plausable.

It actually looks like the beginnings of a transition from the "Type M", the classic huscarl axe, and some leter developments like the Hungarian Axe that A&A makes. Like the smiths had begun to emphasise thrusting as an option.

Could anyone please post a picture of the Type M? I would really appreciate that, as I'm not sure of which one it is. Are axes shown in "Swords of the Viking Age" aswell, or where do you see the different types of axes? I know I should be getting that book anyway. :p

Gavin Kisebach wrote:

It's a longaxe. The profile deviates a bit from most extant examples, as the "toe", or top point is a bit more pronounced than in most examples, and the socket lacks pointed flanges, but it's an axe, and it's certainly got long haft. It's certainly historically plausable. It actually looks like the beginnings of a transition from the "Type M", the classic huscarl axe, and some leter developments like the Hungarian Axe that A&A makes. Like the smiths had begun to emphasise thrusting as an option.

I didn't include the pointed flanges as I thought they were quite rare, but it turned out there were actually more of them. I've attached some pictures of axes that doesn't have the flanges and that I think looks a bit like this one.

Right exactly. Notice the later 12th century axe has that pronounced curve that doesn't just sweep up to meet a very wide cutting surface, as in the earlier examples; it hooks upward to a much greater degree. It's not yet a polearm in the sense that we think of one, but it certainly is moving in that direction.

I want to be clear here, I'm not suggesting that the axe you have is a fantasy axe, I'm only noting that in my opinion it has some of the attributes of a slightly later design than the "classic" Danish axe, i.e. types L and M. It's a cool axe, and one I'd be proud to employ in my quest to slay the hated milkjug. :lol:

One thing that makes categorizing Norse axes so difficult is that they vary greatly from Kiev to the Orkneys, from one smith to another, etc. Some have a welded on edge, some have flanges, a few have a brass cap that goes on the haft under the socket. Variations might best be looked at within a range, with an eye on trends rather than specific parameters.

I've always wondered about the story behind that particular piece from the Hurstwick page (great page BTW). It's got great thrusting potential, but the toe looks as if its been intentionally ground off, not simply broken, and there's hardly any active rust on the piece, so it's not as though it simply rotted away. I find it hard to believe that a compitent smith would build a butter knife into the end of a battle axe, so I tend to believe that the thrusting tip broke off and the owner ground the tip to it's current shape.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very satisfied with it (it's a shame the picture is so bad). I guess the only thing that bothered me was that I couldn't compare it to another axe and thereby be sure of it's historical accuracy. But as you said, all axes are different. :)

Gavin Kisebach wrote:

I've always wondered about the story behind that particular piece from the Hurstwick page (great page BTW). It's got great thrusting potential, but the toe looks as if its been intentionally ground off, not simply broken, and there's hardly any active rust on the piece, so it's not as though it simply rotted away. I find it hard to believe that a compitent smith would build a butter knife into the end of a battle axe, so I tend to believe that the thrusting tip broke off and the owner ground the tip to it's current shape.

It is indeed a nice axe, and it is in an unbelieveably good shape. I have been wondering why the wood is still there. Also, the tip does look odd. Your theory about it breaking off seems quite plausible. If this is the case, I think it is possible that it has been ground off and rust has been removed.

Out of curiosity, how is the balance on your axe? 9 inches is on the lower end of the range, leaning more towards light and fast. I ask because I'm looking to have Manning Imperial do a long axe for me next year, and I'd like to hear from people who have axes already.

Even from the profile shot it looks like Nick did a good job not overbuilding the head like a lot of makers do, though its genereally difficult to tell from that angle.

Also, is that oak or ash on the haft? It looks too dark to be ash, but the grain has some interesting patterns that I've not seen on oak.

The point of balance is about 17 inches, and it weighs about 1.8 kg/3.9 lbs. The wood is ash that I first covered in linseed oil, but I changed my mind and ground most of it off. Apparantly not all, though. ;)