| Author |
Message |
Ville Vinje
|
 Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: Viking throwing axe |
 |
|
Does anyone know if there are any finds of viking throwing axes?
I know that the among re-enactors popular "fransisca" was used by the francs, the anglosaxons and possibly the merovingians but is there any indication that it was used by the vikings as well?
If anyone can shed some light over the subject of viking axes and/or give me a recommendation for a suitable replica of a find I would be more than happy.
/Ville
|
|
   |
 |
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Mammen axe found in Demark is dated to 970-971 and is a throwing axe.
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexi Goranov wrote: | The Mammen axe found in Demark is dated to 970-971 and is a throwing axe.
Alexi |
Hi Alexi
Not disputing what you say, just wondering how we know it was a throwing axe and not just a small axe (for my continuing education).
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoff Wood wrote: | | Alexi Goranov wrote: | The Mammen axe found in Demark is dated to 970-971 and is a throwing axe.
Alexi |
Hi Alexi
Not disputing what you say, just wondering how we know it was a throwing axe and not just a small axe (for my continuing education).
regards
Geoff |
How do we know that small axes were not thrown?  Were the "francescas" only thrown and never used in hand to hand combat, as a small axe would? I personally do not have the answers to any of those.
What makes me comfortable in calling the Mammen axe a throwing axe are its size and its slightly prolonged upper point of the edge. That is hard to see on the original, since most of the edges have rusted away, but if you look at the slope of the upper side of the head, near the edge, it does seem to be curving up.
To answer your question directly, I have no proof that the Mammen axe is a throwing axe. I have no proof that it isn't one either. Maybe I sould have qualified my statement better: " The mammen axe could have been a throwing axe".
I have been unable to find measurements of the original Mammnen axe and how it compares to the "francesca" axes. If you have that info, it will make me a happy guy
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Alexei
I see your logic. Not sure I can see the details on the axe, but monitor is small and eyesight is poor. A supplementary question if I may. How do we know which was the upper side of the head? Are you basing that on the slope of the edge or the pattern or was it found hafted? No, sorry, I don't have any francisca details, so you will have to remain a bit less happy than would otherwise have been the case.
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
Ville Vinje
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is three papers on the fransisca (unfortunately in german...wich I do not understand to well).
I do not know wether the mammen axe is a throwing axe or not, but if you say it is, than many more axes are. I say the shape of the mammen seems to be a bit off when it comes to throwing, but who knows maybe it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I prefer to simply describe the Mammen axe as a small hand-axe, nothing more. Could it be an axe dedicated to throwing? Sure, but there's absolutely no way of knowing that for certain. When I look at this particular axe I don't see an upswept upper surface but rather a downswpet lower surface, much like the shape found on many large axes of the period. The corrosion isn't that severe so I don't think there was a significant upsweep to the upper point. I don't see anything that would mark it as a weapon specifically used for throwing. The only mass-produced version of this axe is the Hanwei version which seems to have an overall geometry far different than the original.
|
|
 |
|
Alexi Goranov
myArmoury Alumni
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoff Wood wrote: | Thanks Alexei
I see your logic. Not sure I can see the details on the axe, but monitor is small and eyesight is poor. A supplementary question if I may. How do we know which was the upper side of the head? Are you basing that on the slope of the edge or the pattern or was it found hafted? No, sorry, I don't have any francisca details, so you will have to remain a bit less happy than would otherwise have been the case.
regards
Geoff |
On the picture I posted, I call the left side fewer and the right side upper.The edge is slanted towards the handle, as is common on many larger axes. I suspect that the point formed between the upper side of the head and the edge is more pronounced than the point made between the lower side and the edge.
If I had the space, I 'd hurl some axes and try to see if there are particular attributes that are necessary for an axe to be a good "throwing" axe. Do we know of such attributes, besides that it should not weigh 5lb and have a two-handed handle? What makes the "francescas" such "great" trowing axes, that the mammen axe does not have?
Just curious, as I have the Paul Chen Mammen axe and it seems to me it will do well if thrown.
Alexi
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katie Neal
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:04 am Post subject: axe. |
|
|
intresting thought actully, why throw an axe?
My friend is into axe throwing, his does it very well. ive watched him many times in the past.
he'd rather throw a spear or javalin then an axe but when he does "toss" the axe you can see the raw power and brute strength when it hits. ive seen him put in throw chain mail aswell.
the mammen axe looks like a throwing axe to me......maybe Bodvar used it as a small hand axe, but whos to say he never throw it once or twice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alexi Goranov wrote: |
On the picture I posted, I call the left side fewer and the right side upper.The edge is slanted towards the handle, as is common on many larger axes. I suspect that the point formed between the upper side of the head and the edge is more pronounced than the point made between the lower side and the edge.
Alexi |
I've seen an axe in the museum in Dublin with the edge slanted away from the handle, and I recall PJ referring to a similar design, plus Petersen has one of his Type Ds that looks that way. I suppose it would make it a bit more of a sabre than a khukuri, edge wise. I agree that a lot more are shown sloping the other way, but I sometimes wonder if some of those are 'the wrong way up' on the basis of the circular argument about which direction the edges go. Both directions can make sense, depending on how you are going to use the axe.
regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allen Reed
Location: Northwest, IL Joined: 19 Apr 2004
Posts: 78
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject: Sling or Axe? |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | I have a problem with the whole concept. Why throw an axe--with an edge very difficult to align relative to the target--instead of a javelin, which concentrates more weight and energy on a smaller point and might also use slightly less iron? I'm not doubting that axes were thrown, I just don't understand the logic. I'd rather use a simple sling and stone than throw a complex, comparatively expensive axe.... |
A sling is a very powerful weapon as is an axe. The advantage to an axe is it can also be used for hand to hand combat and for chopping your firewood.
Also, did the Norse use slings?
Allen
|
|
|
|
|
Ville Vinje
|
| Posted: Tue 29 Aug, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
All these subjects are great, but not really what I asked for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geoff Wood
|
| Posted: Wed 30 Aug, 2006 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ville Vinje wrote: | | All these subjects are great, but not really what I asked for. |
Hi Ville
Sorry, I do tend to digress. Looking through Petersen, I can't see anything in the Norwegian finds that looks like a Francisca. As Alexei has already pointed out, there are small axes that could have been thrown, but whether they are throwing axes, in that that was their intended use, is uncertain. I think the only reason we know that the Francisca was a throwing axe was that the use of such small axes for throwing was described in texts of the time as a characteristic use of the weapon by the peoples involved (Franks etc.). If we hadn't had that, would we have been certain that the francisca was not just another small axe? Again, sorry, not much help really.
Regards
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Wed 30 Aug, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I remember, throwing axes are not very prominent in the sagas; of course, in battle, one would throw ANYTHING. In one instance in King sverres saga, a fighter throws his sword at the enemy king during a naval battle.
Without having tried a lot, I would say that the defining characteristic of a throwing axe is the short shaft; Long hafted axes don't fly very well. From later finds, pictoral and litterary sources, we know that many of the "hand axes" where long hafted, measuring 80-110 cm in length. Throwing these accurately would be troublesome.
A short hafted axe can be thrown easily, but is less useful in hand to hand combat.
As for the upward point on the axehead, this is a feature shared by just about every kind of viking axe, with the posible exception of the type C.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
|
This is a standard topic