Viking Axe & Shield Combat
2018 ж. 10 Қар.
610 681 Рет қаралды
Find hundreds of related posts here: / posts
You are welcome to get in touch e.g. via my Facebook page: / dimicator-266934476773420
Or send an email: dimicator.com/contact/
Find hundreds of related posts here: / posts
You are welcome to get in touch e.g. via my Facebook page: / dimicator-266934476773420
Or send an email: dimicator.com/contact/
Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
When you have an axe, you have a solution to many problems
Axe me a question.
KZhead banned the most forbidden documentary ever published but it’s still available at archive-dot-org: "Europa The Last Battle". Watch it while you still can.
When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
Like misbehaving school children
An axe is great, but the knife is the only weapon!
Remember, it takes a Viking to raze a village.
I like that....I'm stealing that for later use 😉
or any major city and town in western Europe
I'm an Irish/Frieslander....The last of the Druids in Europe before the Christians wiped them out.
James Ziemba Pillage first - THEN burn.
Underrated comment
The most important benefit of the axe I saw was when you were slow sparring. Not only did you hook the shield of your opponent(which he could not do with a sword) BUT at one point you actually hooked his sword, pulled it aside and then stuffed it and his shield under your shield, granting you a wide open hole to attack his head which would have been the end of him. The power to control the opponents weapon should not be overlooked.
"Well bravo, you have successfully attached a table top to the end of your weapon." Great quote
On the handle of mine is carved, "Feed the Ravens". Odin would approve.
😎👌 good stuff! I agree Odin winked.
Into the mouths of wolves
Odin is a bad sign Every man dies when odin is near.
Massive misunderstanding there. He's rather you didn't have to use it at all, relying on your mind to get you put of or avoid the situation all together. He is a wiseman and then a warrior. Not the other way around.
@@SM-xy6py No. Odin is a soul taker. He WANTS ppl to die violently so he has more Einherjar for Ragnarrok. Remember the 9 slaves in the field and his sharpening stone? Odin is a BAD tiding. He ALWAYS dooms mortals to a bloody death. THOR or TYR are to be revered and are not here for you soul.
I used to be active in SCA, and in battles where we had polearms on our side, I would be frontline with shield and axe, just as it was a great complement to spears especially. You had your spear buddy just behind you, and with an axe I would control the enemys shield and my spear buddy would finish him off, while if he had a sword he couldnt do that back, meaning we got a massive advantage. SCA isnt exactly the most accurate of things in many ways, but it can give some insight I think anyways.
Same reason I fight wars with a glaive with wings and my Knight fought pike. I could keep a lot of stuff off of us, while he picked people off.
Could you please tell what SCA is?
I prefer the mini gun or just an mg 42 for zombies if I don't have the ray gun
have a cup a tea father would u ,oh go on mrs doyle Myself, I prefer my lightsaber. A more refined weapon from a more civilized age.
Roland, I did not realise you did all those illustrations. Excellent work sir. I have been seeing your work online and am always impressed with your use of light and the detail of your art. Inspiring stuff, Vielen Dank
Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I am actually a professional illustrator, and all the art work and design that I publish I do myself.
@@swordandshield Just looked it up. Nice water colors. I need to practice a lot more before I could have that control of light and shadow. Cool stuff.
@@swordandshield I didn't know either. As someone highly interested in illustration I'm impressed, you are so great, Roland!
A general note on this comment section: I am grateful for your interest in my videos. They are but one means of sharing the results of my research into historical combat with sword & shield with everybody who sees value in my work. Any video reflects my knowledge at the time of making. Because I am constantly learning, older videos might be out-dated, and I will eventually unlist them. However, you can still find them on my Patreon pages: www.patreon.com/Dimicator/posts On repeated request, I have re-opened comment sections with recent videos. So you are welcome to leave a comment if you feel you have something substantial to contribute on topic. I very much appreciate being pointed to relevant historical sources. I am not interested in hear-say and unreflected opinions. If a relevant question of yours has been left unanswered, then I might have missed it or the subject was already addressed elsewhere. I only check comments occasionally, so have some patience, please. Personally, I feel that constructive discussion on martial arts only exists in the analogue world, in a salle or a dojo. Please consider that your own valuable personal martial or military experience is inevitably reduced to mere assertions in a comment section. That is the nature of online media. There is zero competence control. This why I tend to shy away from such discussion. I find they are prone to misunderstanding, and generally a waste of time. Time that is better spent with actual research, practice and hands-on discussion. I am always open for the latter, and anyone with a serious interest is welcome to get in touch via private channels. Bad manners, boasting and babbling are a pest of the digital age. They have no place here.
As a general question, please, would an axe fighter hook the shield and draw it away with greater violence than is seen in your video? It would seem so, since a large unwieldy shield, to my mind, would be much slower to recover than a light axe.
Whilst I see the point you make, I can't help but also see the use of keeping the videos on youtube whilst marking them in the title as [OUTDATED], thereby getting the point across that the video is outdated. At the same time you open up ease of access to the videos for people to take important and valuable points, and make their mind up about topics covered. For example you could see a particular shield and sword technique as outdated but still viable for say, shield and axe combat.
Just a few thoughts: A relatively lightweight bearded axe combined with laminated rawhide forearm guards provides you with not only with excellent offensive capabilities, but also with formidable parrying capabilities (with an offensive reversal after the parry) against someone armed with a sword and knife or a sword and spear. Also, have a look at the Scots use of a dirk in conjunction with the shield. - The idea of using the shield held in your hand the way you are showing ( a single central grip) doesn't really make sense as, even back in Greek and Roman times they already knew that a man could achieve more offensive force by having the main retaining strap about two thirds of the way up the forearm with the other holding point far enough towards the opposite edge of the shield to hold a secondary weapon ( the shield itself becomes both defensive and a miniature battering ram with force possible in all three dimensions). The axe is so much more of a multi-dimensional weapon than you show. If it were me I would have the axe in my strong hand to start, with a knife held in my shield hand, with my sword only coming out once the shields were thrown away. I would then switch the axe to my weak hand and my sword to my strong hand in order to strike with my sword and use the axe to both parry sword slashes and offensively jab both forwards and upwards, with my hand behind the beard. Finally, the ability to cripple with an axe by swinging at a leg below the shield can't be ignored. The momentum achieved even with a relatively light weight axe is enough to severely damage a leg even without even having to cut through shinguards / knee guards made of leather, metal, or both - Try it again keeping in mind that you want to first cripple then kill (a more efficient order of battle before the advent of firearms), and that anything is allowable to accomplish those singular goals ( we have lost most of this survival instinct, for better or worse). I think you will then find yourselves fighting quite differently than in this video; - be very careful though, a real street fight style sparring match accompanied by weapons can find the snap button that is in almost all peoples heads much closer to the surface than we often care to admit! ( Are we truly the sum of all past experiences???) Have fun!
The "odd weapon combination " is not so odd when you consider that almost everyone will always have a strong side and a weak side, - no matter how much they train. Also, when I say "knife" I am not talking about our current understanding of a knife, but something more like a short sword ( as in the seax, which could be up to 24 inches in length, but was still much lighter than a full sword) - you can then have both defensive and offensive capabilities on your weak side. while having the hooking and long arc/weight forward capabilities of the axe. ( check the physics of why a khukuri is so effective - weight forward minimizes effort and maximizes efficiency of that effort ) As for the concept of the centrally held shield, I think it is simply an over-generalization. Have a look at this for example: sites.google.com/site/svenskildbiter/home/enarmes . It clearly shows the use of two point anchors on shields used by the Normans. - Whether they got this idea from the French, or whether they adopted it much earlier is moot, however it is interesting to note that the Rus and Kievan Rus records show the same sort of thing, so the concept of the two point grip was obviously quite widespread. Finally , the rawhide carrying straps could also be used as a second anchor point simply by giving them a twist or two and then inserting your arm through to grab the central grip. Overall, I'm with you on your second last sentence. All I'm trying to do is point out that although there is more than one way to skin a cat the single point center-hold (in my opinion) may not be the best way to skin that cat, It therefore may not have been, at least as the farmers became more familiar with hand combat, in as wide practice as currently thought - Try hooking a large shield out of someone else' hand with them using the two different grip styles and both you (and they) will see the problems associated with a single point hold almost instantly.
Roland Warz -echa
Very informative and so elegantly demonstrated in the mock combat. This whole series has taught me even more about Saxon and Viking period weaponry :-)
Yes. When you said they were easy to make, you hit the nail on the head. When I was in prison, I made a small axe fairly easily. I broke a piece of a metal off a shelf, made a blade and affixed it to a handle with boot laces. Great protection. Great shock factor. There's nothing like pulling out an axe when someone tries to stab you with a toothbrush.
Doubtful
@@brendanmichel5215 I don't give a fuck what you doubt. KDOC 0090740. Send me your email and I will send you a copy of the disciplinary report.
The way you guys were using the shield reminds me of the way Lomochenko (boxer) uses his lead hand to blocks opponents vision to create striking opportunity. Vision is so important in war
This is one of the best posts. Feeling through contact is one of the Vikings great strength. On top of that they were often taller then their opponants!!!!!!!!!!!
thank you for the history. I loved the seax that you showed, too. I am a bladesmith and bring that background to watching the video. I appreciate it.
Speaking as a Canadian that spends time outdoors in the winter you need an axe. It even makes game processing easier.
right; finish up a battle-- hit the woods w/ an archer, do the game, the firewood...
A light axe can be used for almost any purpose that a heavier axe can be used for, it will just take more time to do it. I've chopped down large trees with a tomahawk, for example. I don't know diddly about fighting with axes (thank goodness) but I do know quite a bit about carrying them and using them for farming, hunting, and woodcraft purposes, and my main observation is this: you spend much more time carrying your axe than using it, so unless you happen to have a pickup truck with you, you want the lightest one you can possibly get away with, and you will compensate for a lighter axe head by using a longer axe handle (force = mass x speed, and longer handle gives a lower mass axe head more speed and thus more force). This is a complicated way of saying that I think the comments here are wrong when they assert that a light viking axe was only weapon, not a tool. I see no reason that a light vixing "fighting" axe can't be also a very serviceable tool, and in fact, if I were marching in an iron age column over many miles, I'd bet that I'd want a light one even if its ONLY purpose were to serve as a tool. (Note to pedants: yes, I know that technically, force is mass x "acceleration" -- you only experience the force if the mass suddenly speeds up or stops, not if it's moving at a constant speed -- but "speed" is better understood in this context.)
Hill Wellford We might want to let Gimli know that. He had more axes than a dwarf could count.
what makes the F=MA equation great is that A=V/t^2 which means the speed of swing (time) will have a squared effect on the force compared to the mass of the axe head
@Hill Wellford - A lot of what you say about handaxes appears to apply to modern handguns, as well. You carry them a lot more than you shoot them, so weight is extremely important. And the length of the barrel is vital for maximizing the speed of the projectiles, whatever the caliber.
Energy = (1/2)(Mass)(Velocity Squared) is the appropriate equation ... Correcting F=MxSpeed isn't pedantry lol. The whole question of force gets complicated in striking ...energy is the simple idea here.
I love the specificity of the comments! In case anyone wonders, my pedantry quip was in the original comment. It's not added later as a shot at anyone (I'm happy and a little surprised to see that people read the comment at all). I didn't want to write the full equation in the original comment out of an attempt not to seem to nerdy, but I'm loving the fact that all of y'all are happy to go full physics on it. Awesome!
Thank you, great presentation and good to see your mileu 'tests' of the beared axes and compromising the shield/balance + strike. The thrusting (with a slight twisting motion) of axes was one of the most useful axe techniques I have found (research and via practice sparring). One of the most popular techniques and advantages of the of the axe was to disarm/defy the balance the opponent, either by cutting over and pulling back the shield edge then exposing the head/body for a thrust or by capturing the opponent weapon shaft underneath the lower arc of the axe-head (suited to the broad and great axes as it requires two hands to muster the power to disarm effectively) and twisting as you cut over 3/4 angle forth and down to force the weapon out of the hands (or else discolate the wrist of the opponent ... hard to describe this without showing it visually although it is depicted in the icelandic eddas) and once disarmed the opponent is usually off balance and you van then easily follow up with a continuation of the sweeping motion down to the back of the neck.
Axes are great to hook shields to damage an enemy's shield wall coherence, pulling open gaps for spears and other longer ranges weapons to exploit
a small axe, such as the tomahawk can project a tremendous amount of force very quickly, in close quarters, and can also be used to grapple, and draw the enemy in as well. nothing is so versatile. That's why modern soldiers often choose to carry them when clearing houses in Iraq/afganistan to this day. They also weigh enough that they can be throw, and even if they don't land the right way, they weigh enough to stun for long enough to allow the thrower to access another weapon, such as a sidearm. Also most likely not as lethal as a gun, but faster at incapacitating, so you don't necessarily have to kill the person, an advantage when you need information, or just want to preserve life. also a handy tool for every day life, and can be used to break down barriers, or punch through a wall.
Great comment. Haven't smashed through any walls today but I give it a try now!
I agree with everything expect the soldiers using them. They most definitely don't. At least in the U.S even the SOF community doesn't use it...we have guns.
@@ted4672 I know what he means though. He’s talking about “breaching” axes. I wouldn’t think they’d be used as weapons. But instead to smash in doors or break locks etc etc.
Great information, thanks for helping with the understanding that not everything is a Viking Weapon, but these items had many more practical purposes in daily labor.
Great video informative and entertaining!
the hook counters the shield and sword nicely, and gives multiple options to break the block and attack quickly. Awesome sparring session.
The sparring in 15:30 I'm not sure if it really means much, but honestly the way they move their shields when blocking and attacking kind of reminds me of a boat in a storm. Rocking first one way, then back, then on again and back. Like I said, probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but considering how much the people who used such things sailed, I just thought it was something of a neat little coincidence.
My God! What an observation, that's great stuff.
Although there is an asymmetry of skill present in the sparring session, the additional control of the opponents shield that your axe offered seemed fantastic! I would have loved it as a Viking too! :D
The Norsemen seldom fought 1 on 1, except in holmgang or other smaller engagements. When fighting a large force, they used well practiced tactics like the square formation and shield wall and had a guy to the left and right. The above tap-fighting is only useful when fighting 1 on 1. When raiding, they seldom fought anything but small levies of peasants and militia, with less or no training in major combat. When they invaded England with the Great Heathen army they had between 3-10.000 men in the army. Try dancing like that then :-)
@@beersmurff I would love to see, how Viking formations would fare against a rather Roman one. Having the Romans fighting with square shields and the Vikings with rather Greek style shields
@@PhilosoFox Seeing there wasnt any major leap in weapon or tactical tech from the Romans vs Celts, I guess the Romans would fare ok'ish. However, the Roman tactics already showed lacks towards the German tribes who managed to beat Roman legions with smaller odds, I would say it would be 50-50. The Viking/Carolingian swords are better and longer than the Celtic ones and the Dane Axe would also give the Vikings a reach advantage. And the Goths already proved, they could beat the Roman legions and sack Rome. We never know :-)
PhilosoFox roman shields could get wet and water logged that was one of the issues in the tuedorberg Forrest defeat v the Germans ,plus they didn't like fighting natives in the forest
@@lukelambert6245 Thanks for the background intel! I can see why Romans wouldn't like to fight in forests, where they couldn't deploy their tight fighting formations. In rather loose forest fighting formations, the larger round shields seem the better choice.
Thank you for the interesting facts of the Viking Axe and Shield. In the mountains of S. Korea I saw the villagers using old shaped long knives for cutting and small long thin blades for cutting meat and cooking- really like stepping back into time (1965) as I served in the Kwon Chon Valley
Axe and shield seems to be underrepresented in HEMA imho. Thank you for sharing this with us. Fascinating stuff.
Aber gerne doch!
That might be because "HEMA" as most people understand it deals only with historical sources and methods - meaning we need written descriptions and we don't have fighting manuals for axe and shield. So everything with those weapons is more experimental archeology.
Swords get the "cool" factor because of how myth and legend treats them. This contributes to HEMA practitioners, SCA heavy fighters, and such vastly under representing weapons like axes and spears
There are several reasons, but the primary one is the same reason why maces, hammers, Zweihanders, and other hard hitting weapons are rarely used. These weapons are designed to strike hard and with a lot of impact to be effective. We can make them out of synthetic materials sure, but anything with that kind of weight distribution is going to hurt when swung hard. We have padding, but it's not the best, and injury can occur from these weapons. The only solutions are to wear better protection (expensive) or "pull our punches" to the point where we can't fight effectively for fear of hurting each other. Nonetheless, the other reasons such as lack of written technique and swords being cool are also contributing factors.
There are several reasons, but the primary one is the same reason why maces, hammers, Zweihanders, and other hard hitting weapons are rarely used. These weapons are designed to strike hard and with a lot of impact to be effective. We can make them out of synthetic materials sure, but anything with that kind of weight distribution is going to hurt when swung hard. We have padding, but it's not the best, and injury can occur from these weapons. The only solutions are to wear better protection (expensive) or "pull our punches" to the point where we can't fight effectively for fear of hurting each other. Nonetheless, the other reasons such as lack of written technique and swords being cool are also contributing factors.
I would really love to see a fight that you would choreograph in a film or anything I truly believe it be the most accurate thing I would ever see
Insightful and fascinating as ever. Thank you, Roland!
You are welcome.
Thanks much for that slo mo demonstration of how the axe and shield are used together. Most edifying. I have used many axes as tools and used to throw hatchets and tomahawks for fun. Tool axes are, of course, very different from the weapons. The thin fighting blade is less useful as a tool. it is lousy for splitting wood. You need a thicker blade to force the split. This was very educational. Thanks much.
Ahhhh. Taking the dogma out of tradition, and learning the why while avoiding nihilism. What a glorious time to be alive.
SIMPLE. BIG AXES HOOK SHIELDS DOWN TO OPEN SHIELD WALLS SO SPEAR MEN CAN STAB INTO THE GAP.
Hook shield and then stabbing motion with the end to help throw off the opponents balance
@@drunkanonymous4756 swing axe and smack self in face. Fall down and get stepped on by buddies, trying to close the gap you opened in your line, because you goofed around with an axe. XD
@@Leman.Russ.6thLegion that could happen. after using the axe to pull down the shield, you would expose the opponents body to some degree. If the spearman isn't able to attack the exposed area, you then could use a stabbing motion with the blunt top area, striking their neck or shoulder to throw them off balance. And as your axe hand is extended forward you can easily bring it up to setup yourself with a chop downwards or just bashing forward with your shield and your axe hand recovering back into position to strike again. If you dont get a kill youd at least throw the opponent further off balance
@@drunkanonymous4756 I understand your point. I was only joking
@@drunkanonymous4756 my real question is why weren't Vikings just using guns?
This was fantastic. You answered questions I didn’t even realize I had. Thank you.
Thank you. Well done. The actual combat at the end backs up your theory.
Roland, many thanks. Your efforts bring us closer to the reality of Medieval combat. Reality = Sharp weapons that kill...
else if the sharpness is not enough to go through armor shear brute force will. so what weapon can deliver broken bones trough mail armor easier a sword or an axe head
You know blunt weapons? They don't have an edge but those surely can kill you
I really enjoyed the one on one fights, it made me realise how strong someone had to be to fight. I never really though about how strong the left or shield arm would have to be as in your fights it appeared to be doing the majority of the work while the dominant arm, which would naturally be much stronger, was used to attempt to gain a strike. Fascinating video, thank you.
You are welcome. Glad you got something out of it.
Probably would have better arm bracing in real fight with real force but less shield range more like hopolites interesting slowed powered down for mock combat also no armour makes legs more of a target ,more of a chess like match without the brute force at times creating weaknesses then exploiting combinations
Very instructive video. Hope your book release some day. Keep the good work.
I always enjoy hearing people talk about things they are passionate about. Everybody has their own interests and hobbies. It is also why watching videos on KZhead about the same thing you learn about in school is far more entertaining.
The Axe has many features that give it advantages. This video gives highly valuable information. So few videos on this weapon!!! The shield was used to deflect and redirect the opponent rather then direct blocking like the movies. One of the main points about the axe is its abillity to rip and pull an opponants shield and weapons. So not only was it a killing weapon it was able to control their weapons and shield.
That is very informative Roland, I got some really large interest over medieval and ancient era warfare more and more due to finding the period much better in how the diversity of armors and weapons and gear was used back then. It's also interesting to me that you mentioned the burial sites, I don't know much about the Vikings in relation to their leaving lasting remains historically, but I find it interesting that you have mentioned they held marks in their weapon to state this individual was maybe a Viking era chieftain, and I find it even more interesting how you told about the use of ropes and bands and cloth possibly for manufacturing said weapons beyond a smithy forging them, that is a similar technique used in other ancient and medieval peoples of the time, such as the Roman legionnaires, the Spartiates and the Japanese Samurai and Ninjas, so as to make it easier to have a initial basis to equip said armor set, and resist a environment of fighting and battles as it was back then.
Loved the thoughtful video. Beautiful movement in the sparring
I am delighted to read this.
I always love to see a new video from you, Roland Warzecha, even more so, when you are actually willing to open the comment section for question and answers. Thanks a lot for your precious time!
You are most welcome.
Love Your Description!
excellent always a pleasure watching your videos.
The pleasure is mine.
One MUST have an AXE to GRIND! Thanks for the information!
Good Job! Very informative.
In reading the sagas I've noticed that while most characters carry a shield their choice of side arm varies quite a bit. In additon to swords you also see a lot of axes but also a few short cutting weapons like the sax. It seems that shield technique could be adapted for use with any sharp implement.
Very interesting. Never viewed the shield like this. People never talk about shieldmanship.
Good point about precision stabbing maintaining a lot of checks on berserkerish sudden onslaughts, thus encouraging a very precise careful combat versus lots of clashing of weapons and shields. It makes sense to test theory on well armored and very powerful combatants with the ability to power through versus engage in fencing-like combat, especially if accompanied by lighter more agile fighters and methods, i.e. massive war hammer, double handed axe or sword, heavy mace smashing through while stabbing swords and spears lurk nearby.
This is a tremendous video. It shows an approach in which the main tactics of the fight are to close lines with the shield, and to try to open a line for the weapon. The sword or axe is only used when the opportunity has been created. This is so much more subtle than the Hollywood (or D&D) approach of swing and block, swing and block, swing and block...
Your combat is different than I thought! Thank you.
Thank you Roland, my bearded axe is my primary, with a dragon carved on the handle by my wife, I wouldn't swap it for a fancy sword ;)
Yeah. I am a sword nerd, but with the Viking shield axes rule!
I hope you never have to fight a tree my friend. :)
I always kept a tomahawk instead of a knife when I was in the army, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna start waving an axe when the enemy has an rpd lol
If you are using a flip/rotating screen on your camera, I would suggest turning it the other way after checking focus and such. It kind of looks strange with you looking off to the side instead of in to the camera. It is hard to not look at the screen which is why I think turning it around is the best solution.
Okay, thanks for the advice.
Just found your channel and I love it!!! A wealth of info and insight into a period of history I love! Keep them coming my friend you have a new subscriber and fan!👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I am most pleased to read this. I will do my best to continue sharing the results of my work.
o, that there was a valhalla...
The Vikings crew should have hired you. All they do most of the time in fights is banging their shields.
I was curious if the axe you're holding, during this video, could've been capable of disarming an opponent with a sword by catching the sword's blade between the inside arch of the axe's blade and the handle and quickly twisting the axe? The arch of the backside of it's blade almost looks as though it could've been designed with that possibility in mind. I'm not the most educated on early combat techniques, so do forgive me if my question may come off as ignorant. Love your videos!
Yes, this does work indeed, and I do it all the time.
Another aspect of the "bearded axe" was that you could slide your hand up right behind the cutting edge: a choke grip. As a tool, this would make it easy to do small precise cuts, such as shaving the edges of a plank, or making wood shavings to start a camp fire. As a weapon, it would make for a very short and direct way of punching or cutting someone with "sharpened knuckle dusters" which might be useful in grappling, or a fight in a very confined space. The handle would then be available for hooking, a bit like the dagger blade when you use a dagger "point down".
WOW! Most enjoyable ending segment! Fantastic. *subbed* ☇
You sure have some nice items there sir. Some of those swords behind you are great looking. I will check more of your stuff out. I like what I'm seeing & hearing here. Thank you for sharing all of this with us. Well done sir, well done.
6:21 most realstic axe sound
Excellent. First one of yours I have seen. What would be different in a mass battle, because there would be teamwork rather than individual combat?
It is unlikely that this kind of shield was ever designed for large formations, and definitely not for cavalry combat. This is probably one of the reasons why it was given up in favour of domed and curved shapes.
Subbed. Great content, plus some subtle rage against the machine in the intro and outro.
Welcome. I appreciate your expertise in 1990s music, too.
Thank you I have been looking for axe history and this video was very informative
This is Thrand, Today is my Birthday and what a pleasant surprise seeing this awesome video pop up in my feed today, I can agree on all points very well done as all ways shield brother! That was a glorious day at Asfolk were we tested Authors historical shield replica out. Love how my sword sticks right in the edge spelling my doom. No one would ever do that intentionally. Hope to see you again soon, would love to do another Asfolk Reunion :D
Hey - happy birthday my friend! My very best wishes from over the ocean. I am confident we will meet again in 2019 when hopefully I will make landfall on the Vinland shores.
Very interesting. I would say yes, the shield played a HUGE role in combat, though I offer that the primary weapon is still the weapon. You're quiet right, you, by necessity, need at times to employ your shield as an offensive tool. The weapon is more effective that the shield however, in this regard. More, with a shield, the defensive use of a weapon is greatly reduced, you can use the shield for much better protection. So I suspect being large, and blocking both strike lines and vision, a shield would be VERY good, maybe even as good or better than many weapons, at putting and opponent off balance or knocking them down. So I suspect you'd be swapping between non-injurous offensive use, and defensive use, with a shield regularly in combat. Yet that doesn't actually injure or kill your enemy. That is the weapons job. I'd also like to point out, that most art and texts indicate that the arc of axes, was seemingly never addressed by some alternative style, we don't see short tucked in arms suggesting darting small swings from the wrist, or the like. The arc is just the trade off for the power, force of the blow. In a good rhythm, an axes own inertia through the swing, can be channelled very well by a skilled martial artist expert in its use, to follow on to the next blow. Almost like a marching bands leader with the baton, or a fire twirler with their sticks. Whilst slower than a sword or spear this can still be VERY fast. The biggest problem with the arc, and it's a problem for maces, flails, warhammers or morningstars and the like too, is biomechanics. You open yourself up, if you're constantly throwing back, or reaching out, an arm to swing it back through an arc to power a blow. But yet, a shield greatly reduces the risks from this. This is why we seem to see these kinds of 'force' weapons, far more often than not, used with shields, big ones (rarely say with bucklers). I personally feel from my very very limited experience and studies, that this just the basic facts of medieval warfare, there's always a trade-off. In this case you trade speed, guard, for power, and the chance to damage armour (which axes and maces and warhammers did much better at that swords). It also meant more often than not you'd need a shield. But the same goes for other weapons. A long sword class sword, is fast, reasonably powerful, and gives some good reach, but isn't as quick as a short sword or dagger, or as accurate, nor have the reach and protection of a pole weapon, nor have the power of an axe or mace. Short swords and daggers, are finesse weapons, you can get in to the gaps, strike the weakness, fast, and accurate, that's they, but they do not impart anything close to the force of an axe, and you sacrifice range, you need get close. Pole weapons can impart huge forces too, and are fast, and give you reach, but take up both hands, preclude a shield, and need space, if you are to lose that distance between yourself and the enemy, it reduces effectiveness, and if you deploy it defensively, which they can be fairly effective at, you lose offensive capabilities. If you're using a bow or crossbow, you're well away, have the protection of range, and pack a punch, but you're often left with just a dagger, if the enemy close to you, and often are wearing lighter armour types because you need s very good range of movement in your upper body, to either draw and fire, or reload. I think this was also well understood by the dark age and medieval soldiery. That's why I suspect axes being a little slower, and inviting more openings, wasn't the biggest issue in the decision to use one. You gained in other areas what you lost in those, and there was a means of reducing the impact of the negatives (like using a shield). Just joining in the discussion, not saying you're wrong about any of this, I probably am.
That was really fascinating great video! Especially how shields were used as part of the offensive rather than purely defensive.
This is very interesting. Thank you. I think that it is also important to consider that the great benefit in fighting in an army or even in a band of men is the benefit of close order combat, where a body of men push through or push down resistance and where they seek protection from each other -essentially the reason why rugby teams have forwards. This fighting was in open order and the conclusions are legitimate but decisive battles are rarely fought in open order. The axe is a multi use tool and it was certainly used in close order too. When you are protected by the shields of your fellows, you can afford to lift you arm, in fact you need a tool that lifts above the enemies' shields and which may have the ability to strike down on heads or shield rims (where you are going with the grain and so are unlikely to stick), so that you can open up a weakness for others with pointy weapons. I think there may also be mileage in the things I have suggested above. The axe truly is a multi tool that predates and has outlived the sword.
With a "draw-cutting" motion you can actually bury your axe pretty deep without getting it stuck. And they must have been known as "destroyers of shields" in kenningar for a reason... Axes were also forbidden in the holmgang - maybe because they weren't seen as "noble" enough weapons, but also maybe they were seen as a "cheat" weapon in a duel where the (difficult) principe it to take turns striking at the opponent's shield in a way that destroys the wood without getting the sword stuck.
Got a source stating they were illegal?. I have read all the sagas, and have not paid attention to any mention of that. I could have overlooked it of course. Only asking because I want to learn and be sure, not because I doubt you :-)
@@beersmurff It's in Kormaks Saga if I remember correctly. Kormak gets involved into a holmgang and only has an axe to fight, but people tell him "you can't use that, let's lend you a sword". That's all I remember and I don't have the time to check !
@@jancello Oki, thank you. Might have to brush up on that :-)
correct
@@jancello You didn't have the time to check, even if you were already online and the answer was just a google away? Wow. That's like standing in a library, with your hands on bookshelf section that has to do with the thing you are currently interested in, striking up a conversation with another person who is also frequenting the same section , not knowing something for certain even though the info source is right in front of you, but declining to find out if you are correct because it takes too long to open the books directly in front of you...
A sword, an axe, and a knife His sword: 0==(=======> His knife:0===(==========> LOGIC
It's for deception. If you see his Sword isn't that big. You might get overly confident. Then he pulls out the knife.
His toothpick must be like 0====(============>
@@user-tv5ek5cm4k that would be his skewer this is his toothpick
Great video...thanks for posting.
I wish I knew about this channel sooner, great job! This is absolutely fantastic.
Thank you.
I could see a double headed ax being very useful in this type of fight. Hook the shield with one head and attack with the other.
a couple of questions: 1) what about blunt weapons - maces, flails, morning stars - how do they fare in duels/against shields or armor? 2) is it possible that axe was popular because it potentially delivers the damage 'behind the corner' and poses a risk to the defender when trying to simply parry/block it? 3) size of weaponry and thickness of armor has probably mostly to do with the weight - fatigue and ability to control it efficiently - so is there an evidence of actual combat intruments reflecting this? like most weapons being made for smaller and weaker (malnourished) soldiers and maybe a few of heavier ones for stronger and bulkier combatants?
Re 1): I am not aware of any finds of maces, flails or morning stars in early medieval Scandinavian contexts. So the they are irrelevant to the reconstruction of combat with this type of shield. Re 2): The reach would be too limited to do any damage. Re 3): Weight is only one factor, and it is generally over-rated when it comes to weapons and shields. Mass distribution is more important when creating a hand weapon. And finally: Hosts consisting of weak and malnourished soldiers on a larger scale rather was a phenomenon of later conflicts, e.g. the Thirty Years War, not the Early Middle Ages. At any rate, I am not aware of any weapons that where made specifically for unfit combatants.
@@swordandshield I think Ondrej is perhaps referring to the fact that when an axe's haft is stopped by a shield (instead of say, the axe head itself), the head is now much closer to the defender than a sword's edge would be. So an opponent has to keep their shield even further from their body, if it's right up close then they might get hit by the blade that has gone past a shield position that would otherwise have stopped a sword.
mace, flail, morningstars designed to deliver huge impact w/o HARMLESSLY glancing-off full metal plate, or getting stuck, very rapid strikes
@@Ocker3 right; go-in behind the opps' shield w/ a short ax; one was called a 'skeg ax'
1. Maces flails and morning stars were commonly used against plate armor that wouldn't easily, if at all be pierced by swords and other stabbing weapons, simply because such a blow could come around a shield, in the manner of a flail and inflict a blow capable of crushing bones. This also ties into 2. Number 3 I haven't done enough research to prove or denote
Thank You for posting this.
You are welcome.
I am completely in love with the look of the axe in thise last sparring matches. It looks like the best of both worlds of a light axe like a tomahawk and a longer axe, like the ones for splitting logs.
I love the axe its something I use all the time and I can still defend myself if need be
When we camp where firearms are prohibited, the tomahawk and Bowie knife used together, will turn big odds into chopped up little ones.
There are various things that put us into contact with our deep roots- hand weapons, acoustic instruments, a paint brush.
I think the weight of an axe is the biggest factor when it comes to determining its use. A war axe should be lighter than a work axe. A heavy headed log chopping axe would be impractical in a battle situation
Yep, and that is why real battle axe blades tend to be very thin in cross section, to keep the weight down. The effectiveness of an axe is determined more by the balance or proportion of its weight, rather than its absolute weight.
Only in close quarters to destroy a shield quickly and then climb in with a smaller axe in the quickly proper disarming tactic ! Is a heavy chopping axe ever considered right or practical for combat !.
Work axes can be very light
Yep, exactly. Actually combat axes used to weight just as a sword, with the weight mostly in the head instead of the handle.
@@paulhampton6408 You are not going to destroy a shield with any medieval weapon, short of a catapult.
WONDERFUL stuff!!! Thank you!
You are most welcome.
Thank you for your time and information. All the research you must have done for this is appreciated sir. Have a great day, please continue your work it is very interesting
Thank you for your kind words.
The Vikings were ambush raiders from the sea, a hitherto protective barrier turned into a mortal threat. Same thing happened to the ancient Egyptians, the deserts were a natural barrier until the domestication of the camel/Later horse 5-10k yrs ago. With the Camels came the raiders, the camel is a ship that never a boat ore dipped.
Öknens skepp
Really cool stuff. I have a question, was cleaving through helmets with swords as shown in period artwork actually possible, due to weaker metal than we have today, or is it just something the artists did for dramatic effect?
Probably the latter. Even if you have really thin and poor quality material. Iron is still iron. Now, you can get a crack or a serious deformation into a helmet e.g. that might injure the wearers head or even kill him. But most depictions of such injuries seem exaggerated.
Very difficult to say. There certainly is an element of dramatic effect when we see such depictions in period art work. Let us not forget that stories from the Bible, myths and legends include exaggeration in abundance, and these stories were well known and may have been used as a template. However, modern helmet reproductions (in particular of early and high medieval models) are way harder than original ones. So I would be careful to dismiss the option that it could have happened occasionally. But I guess it is safe to say that, if it was possible, it must have been very difficult - or else nobody would have bothered to wear a helmet in the first place!
Swords cleaving through helmets was likely extremely rare. We have archaeological evidence of SPEARS sometimes puncturing through helmets (Greek finds), and we have Roman sources that do claim the Iberian falcata and Dacian falx were able to cleave through certain helmets, but those Roman sources are also painting that as a rare and significant event on the whole. The claims in that regard are somewhat supported by the Roman's adaptation of the falcata (chiefly as a cavalry weapon), and their choice to drastically change their battlefield armor in the face of the falx
Yes and why would you make that kind of attack. As Roland said, you’d likely need a semi prone opponent to administer that kind of blow and if you’ve already got that opening why damage an expensive sword on an big attack? Just finish them quickly and efficiently.
@@ianalexander6977 I think that the problem is how to finish them off quickly and efficiently. In the picture the victim is some mixture of tired and injured, but very well armored and defending himself. (Shield is up) Trying to get close enough to stab down through a joint in the armor would not be safe, and few joints are accessable from above. Stabbing from the front runs into a shield braced on the ground. Running around behind him puts your back to his allies... You can kick him over and hope he doesn't have enough strength to stab you in the groin... Or strike the helmet. Even if you don't get through, you can snap his neck or knock him out. Once he is laying on the ground those joints in the armor are more accessible.
I love Viking axes and particularly bearded axes. They're simple and elegant but very effective and lethal.
Really enjoyable video, thank you 👍⚒⚔
You talk here about the significance of the shields thickness (or lack thereof) in a fight. I was recently reading Egil's saga and there is a passage where a party of norwegians fight a force of Kvens in Finmark, there is an interesting note there that says that the Norwegians won because they were bearing stronger shields. I have checked in 2 English translations and they both read the same, do you think that the construction of a force's shields could be enough of a factor to change the outcome of a battle like the text suggests? i know you mostly focus on fighting in a duelling context but you have a lot of experience with accurate reproductions and originals which i am sadly lacking.
Yes, that is a great source. Quality of equipment could always make a difference in military conflict in any period of history, I would say. The late Slavic shield from Lenzen castle had an edge of braided grass, about 10 cm wide. Such a shield may be good in one context, and bad in another. Another example: The Viking impact made the Irish quickly adopt Norse weaponry and shields. Apparently the traditional ones had proved inferior. However, without details on the shields used in the encounter that Egil's Saga refers to, we can unfortunately not say what made the difference.
could also mean their defensive ability was better, , a symbolic shield, or it may mean the shieldwall, and yes it could be the other side had flimsy shields that were too thin or used bad materials
Little correction my brethern. Kvens asked assistance from vikings to fight karelians who were robbing and killing them. Egil asks his men what they think about the offered task and its reward. They choose to fight karelians WITH kvens. And then it is mentioned that they won because karelians didn't have as good shields.
@@robdeskrd I actually do a lot of experimentation with weapons as well as studying a few different historical fighting manuals, such as Fiore's system and 1:33. I asked the question because I'm aware many historical accounts of battles can be exaggerated or otherwise innacurately recorded, the saga I refer too for example was written down a few hundred years after the fact. Thermopylae I believe is a similar case, with one of the most cited sources being written 300 years or so after the battle occured by Herodotus. I was asking if the physical artifacts we have match, or at least give plausibility to the claims of the saga, which it seams they do.
@@ReasonAboveEverything ah yes my mistake, misread whilst skimming through for reference.
A lot of what you cover seems to relate to one on one combat. I'm curious how sheild binding techniques would apply in formation combat with large groups.
Just like in Roman times, the Gauls used the heavy axes to destroy the enemy shield walls and the smaller axe is a cheap weapon useful for close quarter combat. Also, the great axes, like the Dane Axe had a considerable reach advantage over the anglo-saxon and frankish sword at the time.
@@beersmurff I just dont see these techniques usefulness in a shield formation were most if not all are using spears as a primary weapon and swords or axes as sidearms. I'm more curious about the way he gains leverage with the shield laying on top of the opponents . You may have advantage over the guy you're fighting but his buddy to the left or right of him has a wide open shot at you with a spear if your in a formation or shield wall
@@awoods9793 Indeed
Dear Austin, I am curious about that, too. Apparently, this shield design was given up by all early medieval military cultures that relied on larger formations and cavalry, and ultimately, Scandinavians adopted domed and curved shield models, too. This suggests that flat round shields could best play out their strength in duels, raids and small skirmishes.
I didnt read through all the comments, so dont hope I'm repeating. With the shield, they were thin, and you would right before impact rapidly move the shield to deflect and open up your enemy to strike back. Also, the point at the axe (at the bottom so to say) was used to grap the opponents shield and pull it away. This was also used in shield walls to hook onto the back of the shoulderblade/neck of your opponent and pull him into, or behind the wall to deal the killing blow. This was sometimes done by the 2nd row of "weaker" warriors with their weapons
This is interesting. I am a second degree black belt (ju-jitsu) and am in the process of thinking through some self defense / home defense moves that I might perform with an axe (and no shield). Thanks for sharing your perspective and experience.
You are welcome.
any knowledge on spears that you can share with us? :) love your videos, thx for making them.
You are welcome. More on spears in due course.
@@swordandshield wow nice!
i can: spears are OP hey are the true rulers of the battle field if you have more than 20 guys with spears in tight formation you can take attacks from the sword dudes all day
Here is all the knowledge you should need on spears: put pointy thing on stick. Use stick to put pointy end in the enemy.
get a shield& spear of some kind & practice thrusting rapidly over your shield at a swinging target: just keep the pressure up, legs great targets
Interesting, but I'd have liked to have it made sense with the common notion of formation combat rather than 1v1. As we know battles were fought in formation with shields, short arms and pole-arms and lasted for several hours, I like the idea of using the axe as a hook to allow fellow spear-men to thrust and stuff like that, but the fact that combat lasted so long makes me think that breaking shields is still a plausible use for secondary weapon.
Which are your sources on duration of early medieval battles. I am grateful for any historical source you could point me to. Thanks.
@@swordandshield Thanks for the videos Roland. Also, regardless of battle durations, OP has a point. Duelling 1v1 weapons is a different context and tactics compared to formations and battle lines. This is something not often covered by many youtube discussions and displays with medieval weapons which are often 1v1, with space and time - an almost tournament aspect.
agreed
another amazing video, thanks!
You are welcome. I am glad you enjoyed it.
Very nice,learned a lot.Thanks.☺
Dear Roland. The cuts you use in training seem to be very light. Are you doing test cutting with swords? Can this type of light cut be damaging to an opponent?
As far as I know, he usually spars with sharp weapons and the fighting lasts until one person has shown that they had a clear opprtunity to go for a real strike. The reason they use sharps is because the way they bind is very different from blunt weapons. If he was training for fighting for real, he would have to adapt to actually going through with the cut while fighting like he is used to otherwhise. But the biggest challenge would still be, as it would be for most modern people, being able to go through with actually cutting into a person with a sharp sword.
@@Taeerom The sword in the video is clearly blunt though. The axe might be sharp.
@@Taeerom That then leads to completely unrealistic engagement! The experiment becomes pointless since you don't really want to kill or injure your partner you cannot engage and strike as you would in real combat.
dimman77 the only way to have a real engagement is to actually wanting to kill the other guy with a sharp sword. I hope you don't advocate for that. When sparring with sharp swords, you get the feel of sword to sword that is realistic. If you never tried it, only blunt on blunt, then you likely won't even realize how different it is. The thing is, we need to do many different activities in order to safely train all aspects of swordfighting. We need to test cut pigs in order to get a good cut. We need to spar with sharps. We need to fight with masks and blunts. And we need to fight in groups with restrictive rules. None of these alone will give anything close to a realistic representation, but they will each teach you aspects that are very correct.
@@Taeerom Yes, but due to the safety requirements, this is the worst training methodology. Use safe weapons and proper force levels. This delicate engagement only leads to bad habits.
The Axe is said to be the number One Survival Tool If given One choice.
Thank you for this video.
You are most welcome.
Great video. My 2nd view. I have long admired the axe and Tomahawk. In my sparing with the Hawk. We use no shields. Its mainly weapons from the French Indian wars. We employ dull edges or poly practice weapons chalked with different colors. This way even self inflicted by mistake or wounds inflicted by your foe using a technique forcing him to be cut by his own blade still registers as a point in ones favor. We do also spar with weaponry and shields from the older periods. You hit the nail on the head. The lite cuts I think are probes and as in Chess designed to feel out ones enemy. To see what if any school of combat they are using. Combat in measure when knowing this can allow one to even set the enemy up for a cut. If in fact they adhere to their lessons and are set so rigidly from not having trained long enough or lacking the ability to think outside the techniques. One then knows a thrust causes this and a step to ones right always gets a certain response. Their training then becomes their defeat. Do this carefully as to not telegraph this knowledge and one goes into every match against a foe using a certain technique. Already is at a disadvantage. Thanks for all the great videos Sir.I have always felt along with fencing. Edged weapon matches should become a Olympic sport. From one on one duels to Team on team matches. So many think its a brute on brute thing. Having no idea its A ART as much mental as it is muscles even more so I think. As with no thought it is and was a slaughter. I myself have been in two actual blade duels and one other altercation with scars from two where I had to pull my knife to defend myself and another man strung out on something making him ten foot tall and bullet proof. This is why I love the blade. Its always underestimated and discounted. But if civilization ended tonight. The Axe and other blades would soon become worth their weight in gold. After all we are ever on the EDGE
I suppose axe was more effective then sword against man in chain mail. Not to cut through, but to break bone or damage muscle underneath.
@@aleksandarjankovic39 true, but those weapons were later developments of the high medieval age, whereas the battleaxe was an earlier and natural development from the conventional woodaxe. a longsword cannot cut through mail. an axe sometimes can.
Speaking from experience....Getting hit with a blunt axe through chain fucking sucks compared to a sharp sword blow in chain. The Sword feels like getting a pool stick broken acrost your skin. The axe feels like getting side kicked by Joe Rogan. Medieval reinactors try wierd shit when we get intoxicated.
@@kidddogbites Tell me more. Is there a significant difference in speed comparing axes and sword?
@@gabzdark07 that depends entierly on the sword and on the axe. Iv played with axes that are slow and heavy. Played with smaller ones that were nimble. Personay i prefer a small head on a longer shaft. You can grab things with the axe in a way you cant with the sword. Theyres just trade offs. If i was in armor id want an axe. If unarmored then a sword. Timing beats speed every time.
If thrusting with the haft tip regularly happens with axe fighting, wouldn't it be a good idea to add a small metallic spike (or a blunt cap) at the tip? Did people in medieval period toyed with such an idea?
You thrust with the horn of the axe.
Did you see any haft tip thrusting in the video? I cannot recall any. But metal chapes for spear butts did indeed exist occasionally.
Well, to my untrained eye, it seemed as if you were thrusting your axe into your sparring partner's face after you opened his guard by using the axe like a hook to pull the shield.
@@Compcube oh, now I understand. I would say that the axe head is a capable weapon in this regard without much danger of getting stuck, as opposed to a pointy spike.
ive rarely seen real-war weapons w. pommel-spikes; they may not have done enough damage to be worth the risk of the stroke
Excellent presentation, and you have cleared up a major misconception about Viking weapon use. (I especially liked your comment about "attaching a tabletop to your sword...quite picturesque!)
Thank you, pleased to read this.
Fantastic amount of information
Ah, I see. The axe could have been used for pulling the opponents weapon and shield around and take control of the fight!
Everyone is a "expert" critic. I know little about the history of use, the actual manual protocols in simulated combat, etc., yet reading the comments, I wonder if I'm missing something in not understanding, inferentially, in the answers or is the commenter just blowing. The narrator seems to have enough reading-reference-sources to be more knowlegible than the critiques proffered.
It might be helpful to note that muskets were inscribed for the purpose of displaying the manufacturer's skill. If it was beautifully inscribed, then the maker was skillful enough to make a high quality piece. Could be the same for axes.
dueling fight, but what about battle field engagement? Rubka in russian?