Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > axes, swords, and maille Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Jeremy V. Krause




Location: Buffalo, NY.
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,717

PostPosted: Mon 21 Mar, 2005 5:13 pm    Post subject: axes, swords, and maille         Reply with quote

Hello everyone,

I don't mean to dig up some controversy but I was thinking. . .
The issue of how swords (let's limit this scope to the Gerbig typology, the X's, Xa's, Xi's, XII and XIIa's, XIII and XIIIa's) and their utility against maille has been discussed ad nauseum.

Well, what about the axe, both the single handed wielded with a shield, which I have not seen in period illustrations but assume to have existed, and the two-handed long-hafted axe which appear in many manuscripts. In my un-informed, but wandering mind it seems that the axe kind of bridges the sword and the impact weapon realms thus providing a weapon with a thin cross section- concentrating the force of a blow to a small area, and the weighted end of the head aiding in the concentration of this impact point.
I am just talking axes here not pole arms, but what do you guys think about the issue of axes meeting mail or even leather, would the axe have been a more specialized weapon in earlier times with the sword (700-1300) as the pole axe and spiked mace became in latter times.
Maybe I'm just talkin' out of my axe here but. . .
Jeremy
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Mon 21 Mar, 2005 7:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The subject may have been discussed ad nauseum but apart from people getting emotional about it, getting answers has been frustrating: Either casual tests have been dismissed as unscientific or scientific tests have been too expensive to do.

So even with all the variables: Good swords versus lousy maille or lousy swords against high quality maille or any combination of quality, some sort of ballpark if not absolute idea should possible to arrive at of how effective swords were against maille.

The usual conclusion is that if swords were completely ineffective they would not have been used and if maille was of very limited effectiveness it wouldn't have been worn!

So if anyone has personnal experience cutting at maille the results even if not scientific or absolute should give at least an idea of what was possible. I guess apart from frustrating discussions about how invalid some tests or conclusions are, I just wish someone would actually mention what the results were. Again even if they don't prove anything once and for all!

As to the really big axes they should either cut through maille more easily than swords, assuming the swords could, or at least do major breaking of bones and internal injuries. Also doing a good job of destroying shields and the arm holding it.

The same effect as a Pole Axe but less well balanced: Held horizontally the heavy head of an axe wants to rotate in the hands while the axe head of the Pole Axe is counterbalanced by the hammer head on the other side giving a more neutral balance.

So at the risk of letting loose the dogs of misunderstanding: Let the arguments begin ........ Laughing Out Loud

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
G. Scott H.




Location: Arizona, USA
Joined: 22 Feb 2005

Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon 21 Mar, 2005 8:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The subject may have been discussed ad nauseum but apart from people getting emotional about it, getting answers has been frustrating: Either casual tests have been dismissed as unscientific or scientific tests have been too expensive to do.


I hear you! This is probably one of the most-covered subjects on the various sword-related forums, with seemingly no satisfying results! Mad Unfortunately, the ONLY way to know how various weapons and armour would react to each other in battle is to test them in ACTUAL battle! Dressing a fresh cut side of beef or a 10 lb. ham in a piece of maille and beating the s--t out of it with a sword is fun, but it isn't a fair representation of combat. It's like firing a bullet into ballistic gelatin, it looks cool, but human bodies are not made of homogenous tissue like ballistic gelatin, and bullets do not behave the same way when passing through them.
As I don't forsee a bunch of guys getting together in PC armour with PC weapons and going at it to the death, we are left with unscientific tests that only show what a sword will do to a side of beef dressed in maille and hanging from a tree. It may well be that more scientific tests could improve our knowledge of arms/armour performance (without the need of actual combat Laughing Out Loud )to a certain point ; however, the problem is finding somebody with the proper equipment, money, and interest to conduct such tests.
As Jean said, we can safely surmise by the continuous usage of maille and swords throughout Medieval Europe that they both must have been reasonably effective.
As far as axe effectiveness, were they more effective than a broad, sharp, well-balanced sword? I really can't say. :(Sorry. Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Wallgren




Location: Bjästa, Sweden
Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 620

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 2:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You could dress up friends you don´t like in maille and line them up in battleorder and steal a Albion Duke and see if you ave any friends left after six minutes... Big Grin Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud

(No offence intended to anyone, Just a whole lotta irony)

Swordsman, Archer and Dad
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 7:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Martin Wallgren wrote:
You could dress up friends you don´t like in maille and line them up in battleorder and steal a Albion Duke and see if you ave any friends left after six minutes... Big Grin Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud

(No offence intended to anyone, Just a whole lotta irony)

I think we may have finally come up with an actual practical use for politicians. Big Grin

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Aaron Schnatterly




Location: New Glarus, WI
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Reading list: 67 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,244

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 8:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:
I think we may have finally come up with an actual practical use for politicians. Big Grin


You'll get no argument from me over this one... They've certainly used enough of our young population to test modern armor's resiliency to bullets.

-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________

Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jeremy V. Krause




Location: Buffalo, NY.
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,717

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 8:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello everyone,
Though I really have no control over where this disscusion goes I want to emphasize that I did not begin this thread to deal with the sword and maille question but to gain others ideas about the useage of the axe against maille or leather.
The whole sword/maille thing has not been fruitful so can't we just let it be for now?
There are other forums to tackle circullar questions and territorial quibbles. myArmoury has raised the bar on meaningful exchange so let's follow this trend.
So let's discuss axes and light armour.
Jeremy
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 9:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jeremy; I think that there are two answers to the popular use of axes. First of course is that an axe is generally a useful implement outside of the field of battle (one of the main reasons for the popularity of the Tomahawk in frontier combat: useful as well as ornamental). On the other hand, I think that it was probably somewhat more effective against armour and sheilds that a sword is... but the caviat being that it is also more difficult to weild effectively, and has only the edge as a useful offensive part. A sword has of course (usually) two edges and a point, thus being significantly more flexible in it's employment. (It's a lot like the Marines used to say about the Colt .45 Automatic: More effective than a rock, but more difficult to throw accurately).

The above is of course opinion, but fairly well based opinion, I would like to think.

Cheers,

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Alina Boyden





Joined: 19 Apr 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 9:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, without actually testing an axe versus mail armor we can at least look at some principles of the axe. In my opinion, it is almost a requirement that the axe be better at defeating armor. The reason for this is the nature of the weapon. Firstly, the axe has a smaller area of impact than the sword. This concentrates the force of the blow in a smaller location, increasing the effective power of the strike. Also, because axes have more weight at one end, they develop more centripital force, and thus also have more momentum. The blade of the axe is also usually curved which allows the force of the axe strike to be delivered at the highest point on the curve further increasing the focus of the weapon's energy. So it would seem to me that an axe strike would be more damaging than a sword strike. I think we've all swung axes and swords both. The axe hits harder, that's just the nature of the weapon.
View user's profile
David R. Glier





Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 2:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would dispute the idea that the blade is the only useful part of an axe.
View user's profile Send private message
Alina Boyden





Joined: 19 Apr 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 2:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David R. Glier wrote:
I would dispute the idea that the blade is the only useful part of an axe.


Very true. But we have to admit that using the haft of the weapon to penetrate mail armor is absurd.
View user's profile
David R. Glier





Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue 22 Mar, 2005 2:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

penetrate, no. But it works wonders for smacking a fellow around enough to line up for a full-armed shot.
View user's profile Send private message
Greyson Brown




Location: Windsor, Colorado
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Posts: 812

PostPosted: Wed 23 Mar, 2005 6:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alina Boyden wrote:
Well, without actually testing an axe versus mail armor we can at least look at some principles of the axe. In my opinion, it is almost a requirement that the axe be better at defeating armor. The reason for this is the nature of the weapon. Firstly, the axe has a smaller area of impact than the sword. This concentrates the force of the blow in a smaller location, increasing the effective power of the strike. Also, because axes have more weight at one end, they develop more centripital force, and thus also have more momentum. The blade of the axe is also usually curved which allows the force of the axe strike to be delivered at the highest point on the curve further increasing the focus of the weapon's energy. So it would seem to me that an axe strike would be more damaging than a sword strike. I think we've all swung axes and swords both. The axe hits harder, that's just the nature of the weapon.

David R. Glier wrote:
I would dispute the idea that the blade is the only useful part of an axe.


Very true. But we have to admit that using the haft of the weapon to penetrate mail armor is absurd.


David R. Glier wrote:
penetrate, no. But it works wonders for smacking a fellow around enough to line up for a full-armed shot.


I think there are several valid points the above argument! I would also like to point out that an axe (as ageneral rule, I know they came in several makes, models, colors (sure, why not? Cool ), and sizes) is slower to recover from a blow, that means, at least in my way of thinking, that you have to do a pretty good job on your opponent with the first swing. If it failed to be effective enough to counter its sluggish nature, it probably would not have been used all that much. The counter agrument to that is at least in part, David's point. You can use more than just the head of an axe, even if it doesn't kill the bloke outright.

It is only speculation, but I think that part of the reason that fewer people today are interested in axes and their effectiveness is that they are harder to use. To a farmer who couldn't afford a sword, but had to have an axe around for his chores anyway, it was worth learning a little bit in order to save money, but for the modern individual, the sword is easier to use intuitively, and is a lot sexier, too. I'm afraid that means that, as hard as it is to determine the true effectiveness of a sword, doing the same for the axe is going to be even harder.

Those are just my ideas, though. Based on little more than my version of logic.

-Grey

"So long as I can keep the path of honor I am well content."
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The White Company
View user's profile Send private message
Mikko Kuusirati




Location: Finland
Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Reading list: 13 books

Posts: 1,080

PostPosted: Wed 23 Mar, 2005 8:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greyson Brown wrote:
It is only speculation, but I think that part of the reason that fewer people today are interested in axes and their effectiveness is that they are harder to use. To a farmer who couldn't afford a sword, but had to have an axe around for his chores anyway, it was worth learning a little bit in order to save money, but for the modern individual, the sword is easier to use intuitively, and is a lot sexier, too.

The sword gets more media coverage. In movies the hero always wields a sword. Personally I'm rather annoyed by this irrational (and, more importantly, boring) bias.

I want to see a movie based on David Gemmel's Legend... Happy

"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 23 Mar, 2005 10:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A two handed axe, if made for battle, is plenty fast enough to match a sword. And I'm not sure about axes, but DiGrassi writes about partisans that could "break the mail and divide the Iron." If the sword-like blade of a partisan could do it, an axe blade probably could do it as well...
View user's profile Send private message
Matt G. Meekma




Location: Horicon, Wi
Joined: 03 Mar 2004

Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed 23 Mar, 2005 1:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mikko Kuusirati wrote:

The sword gets more media coverage. In movies the hero always wields a sword. Personally I'm rather annoyed by this irrational (and, more importantly, boring) bias.

I want to see a movie based on David Gemmel's Legend... Happy


A Legend movie, or any movie based off of Gemmel's books would be great!!!! Big Grin Big Grin

Ok back to the topic..

It was awhile back, but on the TV show Conquest, they test sword, mace and axe against mail. Granted the chain shirt was draped over a 4x4 post frame built to pass as a torso and 2x4 shoulders. How ever it showed the Axe to GREATLY surpass the sword in the area of splitting the mail. It opened the shirt up from neck to waist, where as the sword did little to no damage as far as splitting the rings. (Mace totally destroyed the 2x4 shoulder even though it didn't split the mail BTW)

Now I know you can't believe everything you see on TV, and I know that there are Many types of swords with may types of functions. And that Thrusting through the mail with a sword would be more effective than trying to slash and split the rings with one, but the question was about axes and their effectiveness against mail and other like armour.

I know that Lloyd was hoping to get some mail to do some test cutting against for one of our faires and that Albion was/is very interested in test cutting against various armour mediums as well. Who knows maybe this spring or Fall we might have a video with our own personal results. Allan From MT sent out a Breast Plate last fall to joust against with a sharpened lance, but we weren't properly prepared for that so our results were less than favorable.

*ok end rant* Big Grin

Beer is God's way of saying He wants Us to be Happy. - Ben Franklin
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Mon 28 Mar, 2005 9:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are one handed axes and two handed axes. The two handed axe is relatively fast, and extremely powerful, and the shaft end can be used as an effective blunt weapon. Using one means you are not using a shield, however. This means you are much less well protected, particularly in a melee situation with spears that might come at you from either side, or from outside your range. In periods when even well-armoured men were not usually armoured on their forearms, lower legs, or face, there was a definite risk.

A one-handed axe allows you to carry a shield, which vastly improves your defense. However, the one-handed axe is slower to recover (and slower than a sword), and the butt-end is less useful as a weapon than with a two-handed axe.

The two kinds of axes have to be considered separately, just as arming swords and zweihanders are not the same weapon.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hmmm. I agree with your point about the big difference between one handed and two handed axes. I have to note, though, that a two handed axe would do just fine against a shield user one on one, and probably have a considerable advantage. Of course, shields are more useful in battle, where movement is limited and the action usually flows one way. Also, shields are also quite a bit better at catching arrows and other projectiles than axes are...

As for one handed axes against mail, yeah, they must have been better than a sword, but mail is still a solid defense and probably was tough to defeat with the power of only one arm and only two feet of leverage. Even with a two handed axe I doubt it was trivial.
View user's profile Send private message
Tyler Weaver




Location: Central New York
Joined: 05 Mar 2005

Posts: 44

PostPosted: Wed 30 Mar, 2005 2:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A swordsman, unless he screwed up bigtime, would have relatively little trouble against someone with a shorter and slower axe. Even if a one-handed axe packs more of an armor-piercing wallop, it's not much of a defensive weapon and I doubt that using its haft in-close would be a winning game against the kind of nasty draw-cuts and pommel-strikes that can be laid out with a sword in close combat. There's a reason why people liked swords and hand-axes didn't come into use in preference to them (by some knightly types) until plate armor had advanced to the point that their armor-cracking abilities outweighed their disadvantages of being relatively slow and clumsy to defend yourself with.
Aku. Soku. Zan.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 31 Mar, 2005 12:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I agree, one handed axes lack the reach and balance of a good sword.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > axes, swords, and maille
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum