Another in my ancient and medieval weaponry series. The axe depicted at the end is not an invention of mine, but one being sold on-line today, which I came across while internet searching for illustrations. www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
So basically a mace from the Elder Scrolls universe? Daedric Mace: vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/elderscrolls/images/a/a9/Oblivion_DaedricMace.png/revision/latest?cb=20120612180428
You swing your single bitted axe, it gets stuck in your opponents rib cage, rendering you disarmed. You swing your double bitted axe, it gets stuck in your opponents rib cage, you pick him up by the ankles and starting chopping with the second axe blade. Simple.
Double bitted axes as you said were mainly used in felling and bucking. One end having a wider geometry for bucking while the other is thinner for felling. They really saw a resurgence in North America through the logging industry during the 19th century. Also known by the loggers as "backstabbers" because of obvious reasons.
I would think that the 'beard' of an axe would do better as a 'horn' so to speak. You could swing into an opponent who would try to parry or counter, possibly backing up but then you would still have your back swing (as well as a slightly longer reach.)
Of course, because a wood axe is completely incapable of injuring or killing someone. The wielder might not have that option depending on the spear though, so that largely depends on the circumstances. Swords probably weren't widely used by anyone who wasn't a nobleman or some other upper class citizen, which would likely leave them with just a knife or war axe as you 'stated quite clearly'.
Hm, I do believe it was me that asked this question a while back. :) I suppose one reason you *might* see a double-bitted axe on a battlefield is if it were indeed a lumber axe and some peasant had brought it to war. But since he would have no experience of using it to fight, and is bound to do far more damage with a spear and shield, that is unlikely.
@EntropicUsername in the dnd world those are mighty effective. i remember a half orc barb/ranger who could run up 50 ft buildings and murder everything in his path... good times.. he also intuited direction by covering his eyes pointing and spinning in a circle.. i was only wrong once.
It's not Mike Loades who presents conquest it's actually Peter Woodward as a clarification. You should watch it Lloyd, great comedy value for some bits.
The only weapon of that scale I think of that were or could be used in this manner that double-bitted axes are portrayed is the great sword, or Zweihänder, a specialist weapon sword specifically designed to fight against flanking pike formations by the German Landsknechts. But even that is a balanced weapon. Arguably for the fantasy realm, Dwarves (which probably didn't exist) might have the right body type for using that type of weapon maybe? I don't know, lol.
yeah, id say this illustrates ANOTHER reason why to not have double bitted axes. ecause its in your interest more to have the reverse side of the head to consist of a sort of spike like attatchment,s the same reason why warhammers and most halberds didnt have double bitted heads, you add no discernable advantage doing that, when instead you can increase it versitility massiively by adding something else, like the spiked warhammer, alot of axes depicted have this reverse spike thing in greekjars
Psh. Triple-headed axes are weak. Your axe needs at least four heads arranged into a cross pattern and set on to a spinning axis like a pinwheel. The sight of your Spinning Daisy Axe of Doom would send the enemy quaking in their boots!
You need them mounted on both ends for the best effect. Then when you spin your double ended quadruple headed pole axe the enemy will be so confused they won't even stand a chance!
Daniel Muonio Both ends and attached to 1 foot long chains for extra length! If that doesn't get someone killed (mainly yourself) I don't know what will!
armoredp Ha! My little sister used to play with one of those in the crib! We called it, "a rattler". You must use them two to a hand with liberal use of flaming oil to get the proper effect.
Just my personal opinion, but I would think that an armor piercing spike would be much more useful on the other side of an axe, rather than just a second bit.
Lensius This is of course dependant on the time period. Dark age/Viking age axes didn't need the pike/hammer because the armor was not good enough. Now medieval suits of armor on the other hand..
Late reply (2 years later), but yes, people like me who are just as stingy about fantasy vs reality as Lloyd, Skall, Matt, etc., can be horrible because we get disappointed in our GM's for their wildly inaccurate combats, items, and settlements. BUT, we can put it aside in the name of fun, because that's what RPG's are for 👍
Here you go. www.ebay.ca/itm/Vintage-ottoman-islamic-mughal-indian-steel-spiked-mace-horseman-gurz-shespar-/143683023359?hash=item21742cf1ff Real indian triple-head axe/mace hybrid, less than $500. Or, if you prefere silly fantasy stuff - here you have one www.medievalcollectibles.com/product/conan-the-barbarian-triple-axe-of-rexor-by-marto/
+BADALEX Until you realize how impractical they are. There's nothing wrong with purely aesthetic features but when it's either obvious that it's a feature that would make the weapon less effective in practice, or I find out that's the case through videos like this, it destroys the weapon for me. That's why I hate the weapons and armor in World of Warcraft.
recursor94 Again, if people from the era deemed them practical enough for gods with superhuman strength and you're playing a character with superhuman strength ... I wouldn't consider the weapon destroyed. Otherwise you're more faithful to the epoch than the people who lived in it ;)
Hold a stick, imagine it has a double-bitted axe head on it, and try out that back-swing manoeuvre you suggest. Imagine that the head is very heavy too.
I have seen a reference to Scandinavian peasant soldiers using double-pitted axes. They'd use one end for chopping wood, which inevitably wears it out, and then go into battle with a much sharper end. Of course, it's questionable how often one would spend a day chopping wood and then go into battle after, and plus they could just sharpen any axe before battle, but I certainly did see a reference to this sort of axe.
Only thing I'm aware of there ever being on the reverse side of a real battle axe would be a spike - much the better for getting through armour, since people typically didn't cut through the stuff. But that gives some degree of versatility, as opposed to having a second axe head that just won't get used.
Sure, but that's not the point he was trying to make, he was trying to discredit the use of specifically made for war double-bitted axes. I am sure some cook somewhere also used his ladle as a weapon, your argument can be made for any stick-like tool.
One other point about double-bitted axes is that it balances the axe perfectly, making you not have to fight a counter torque trying to move the axe when chopping, while using a regular handle.
I've seen many Roman examples of axes like that, and they are all carpentry axes. I suspect that this is the same. Such axes would be taken on campaign because on campaign there would be many uses for them, and so they are found in military contexts. It does not look like the ceremonial panoply axes one sees. "Identical in their terrible cruelty" is a strange phrase - suggesting that they carried two axes rather than one axe with two blades. I could be wrong, of course.
@legendsofgrine Well, an axe head has a right and left side, as well as a front and back, but it would seem an odd thing to mention that they sharpened an edge from both sides. The edge has an upper and a lower part too, but again, why would this require a mention? Some things like chisels are sharpened one side only. I don't have an explanation for this, other perhaps than that the translation might need attention.
@binaryzolo A few reasons: the ideal haft is S-shaped, and the single-bitted head sits in the right place for this. You get a bit more punch with the blade weighted and placed ahead of the shaft. The beard can be bigger and stringer with a single-bitted axe for the same weight. In the end, though, I'd simply point out that they didn't make very small double-bitted heads, and the ancients probably knew what they were doing in this matter.
They are not for parrying with. Some maces certainly have hand guards (usually circular). Those that do are generally all-metal, and it is down metal shafts that blades tend to slide. You are right, though, it is a good question. One might value one's fingers above an extra bit of weight.
My friend John developed "The harpsichord test" while playing the role play game "Warhammer Fantasy Role Play". Playing the rules as written, any dwarf worth his salt should be able to carry a harpsichord without suffering any encumbrance penalty to running or fighting.
The angle of the rear bit is not conducive to use as a striking face. Better and stronger is to turn the axe in your hand, which can be done quickly with a light axe, and then you can use more and better muscle groups to control the weapon.
Er... I did a Google picture search for various terms like "axe" "battle axe" "Axe warrior" "double-bitted axe" and it came up in one of those (a few pages in). I think you might find it quicker by adding the word "Conan".
@zoomraker Spoons. It's the last thing they'd expect, and selecting them ostentaciously when knives were clearly available might lead to their imaginations creating terrifying horrors for themselves.
@zoomraker Spoons. It's the last thing they'd expect, and selecting them ostentaciously when knives were clearly available might lead to their imaginations creating terrifying horrors for themselves.
I don't think I have seen that. I think I would have remembered. I have met Mike Loades. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has more practical experience than most people.
@elgostine Seriously, I'd take the fork any day. A harpsichord is a fore-runner of the grand piano, that plucks the strings instead of hammering them. Popular in the Baroque period.
@47pwner I suspect you mean 'labrys'. No evidence that I know of. Take a look at archaeological examples. The ceremonial ones would crumple if you hit anything with them.
@Wiinajamizzi Have you ever tried that? It is not practical. Besides, twisting a single-bitted axe is easy and quick, and brings stringer arm muscles into play.
Difficult to apply many real-world arguments to fantasy, since dwarves may be inhumanly strong etc. but I'd still advise Gimli to stick to single-bitted.
I watched this video after watching Scholagladiatoria's video on the subject, and BOY does Lindybeige sound like an idiot on this topic. First off, a battleaxe is much LIGHTER than a woodcutting axe; it HAS to be for the wielder to swing it as fast as they'd need to in a real fight. Second, part of his explanation of the double-headed woodcutting axe actually DEFEATS his argument against the double-headed battleaxe; JUST LIKE with a double-headed woodcutting one, you could flip the double-headed battleaxe around when the first head blunted to use the second head against your foes. Third, with a double-headed battleaxe, you can actually perform a backhand swing WITHOUT having to change your grip first, as you could do it WITHOUT having to turn the battleaxe around. BONUS, a double-headed THROWING axe has a SIGNIFICANT advantage over a single headed one, as it gives it DOUBLE the potential purchase if, as was very often the case, the horn was the ONLY part that got stuck in the target. I personally would take a single-headed battleaxe with a backspike or a backhammer if given the choice between the two of them, as, according to my research, would MOST battleaxe wielding warriors, as that gives me two DIFFERENT weapons in one, instead of two of THE SAME weapon in one; and while I don't know WHAT exactly makes people think a double-headed battleaxe looks ANY cooler than a single-headed one with a backspike or backhammer, let alone cooler looking enough to be as popular as they are in fantasy media, I won't HATE on anyone who DOES think they look cooler; I'll just agree to disagree. The point being, Lindybeige is WRONG about this; I've actually SEEN old photos on the internet of dervishes holding double-headed Tabarzin. Here's one here: www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/MEV-10269734
If you were to stick more weapony bits onto an ax and either wanted or didn't mind the extra weight, you'd be better off with a stabby bit and a smashy bit instead. Oh wait, that's what many historical weapons looked like...
Modern double bits have a different thickness on each side. Or at least the quality ones do. One side is thinner and sharper, to bite deeper when chopping across the grain (like when you're chopping the tree down). The other side is thicker and acts more like a wedge for splitting. If you have a reason to buy a wood axe for it's intended purpose, def invest a little. Your back will thank you. And shoulders. Arms and knees too. Processing a tree by hand is a massive job to begin with.
+Jesse W I would say the "blunt" side is not for splitting, but it is designed for its durability. If you would use the sharp side low to the ground and hit dirt or a rock or whatever, you'll never forgive yourself. The other side, however, is great for tasks which will wear your axe down a lot, since a thicker edge means a more durable edge. At least that's what I was told at some point. A true splitting axe has a completely different shape anyways, and is way too heavy to attach to the same tool you are going to chop trees with - I think that would do more harm than good.
I don't see many tool designs, especially old tools, that are built to cater to mistakes and user error (hitting the ground with the axe). The design seems to always (well usually) be based around the concept of doing a job as efficiently as possible in the hands of someone who knows how. The steeper angle of the blunt side forces the wood outwards sooner than a slim blade could. I kind of see the double-bit as more like a multitool. While it can't fulfill all the roles perfectly - a felling axe is lighter and has a handle designed for swinging, maul is heavier better at splitting, ntm if you go into crosscut saws, wedge and sledge, handaxes etc- packing around a 3-4lb tool beats packing 20+ lbs of other tools.
Double bitted felling axes are sharpened or are often sharpened differently on each side. One side is finer for crosscut. The other is more like a splitting maul..... for splitting. That's another reason for 2 heads. I reckon lumberjacks etc would carry a stone or a file with them for sharpening. Great video Lloyd
The straight axe at the bottom looks like a carpentry axe to me. The one with the longest handle (which will be modern) looks a bit more war-like. Interesting.
The point about fantasy axes being way too big was really driven home when I started lifting weights. Some of those things would be 20 kilograms, the weight of a standard weight plate. A quarter of your weight already pretty seriously unbalances you if it's close to your center of mass. Even if you are really strong you can't swing around a significant fraction of your own weight on the end of a pole. It just doesn't work, you'd just fall over no matter how strong you are.
Dear Lloyd, I'd like to add a belated comment to this video, even if late by a decade I'd still like to say it. I can think of at least one good reason why someone would be using a double-bitted axe: imagine having to carry out a double execution by beheading, and doing it with a single-headed axe. What a mess! But on a more serious note, the possibility that a double-bitted axe was a real weapon of war is confirmed in my country, Romania, where one of our most revered national heroes, Michael the Brave, a 16th century Vallachian prince is largely portrayed as carrying such an axe in most older and contemporary statues and in some graphic images of the era. The weapon he might have been carrying is a double-bitted axe with a small head at the end of a thin, medium-length handle, much like a morning-star mace, and could have been used as a cavalry weapon. I imagine that when swinging such a weapon downwards from atop a horse while charging infantry, one would appreciate having two axe heads rather than one at the end of the swinging stick. One would not have to look very carefully to make sure that the ax is aimed with the one blade towards the target, and it could make it possible to also do an underhand as well as an overhand strike downwards without spinning the handle. Or it might just have been historical prop :D
While I do agree that they're not practical at all. I disagree that oversized double bitted fantasy axes look dumb, they look badass imo. Oversized DW 1h single bitted axes and 2h double bitted are my go to weapons any melee game where they're usable.
There were some and were meant to take away the need for recoiling to strike again. A soldier would fight with one like a tennis player would swing a racket
Lindy, hear me out. Let's just propose for a moment that you intent to use your axe two handed and make sweeping side to side swings rather than overhand chops, much like how you would utilize a claymore. With me so far? Great. Now in that scenario, taking the time to swing, then attempt to pull back the blade for another go would leave you dangerously exposed for at a second or two. Agreed? Attempting to flip the blade around in your hands during combat is also foolhardy ( you've made videos on that point yourself). If you wish to employ an axe but DON'T intend to use overhand chops as your primary method of striking, but rather horizontal slicing, this design offers one of the more logical solutions to maximizing attack frequency. Hell, I'm fairly certain the Persians HAD a two bited axe as one of their mainstay weapons for centuries (though I suppose that weapon might count in the polearm class given the length of the haft...).
I realise your comment's 3 months old, but I just have to respond to this. Apologies in advance for the wall of text. First of all, wielding an axe isn't the same as wielding a claymore or any other sword. A sword's weight is concentrated in the hilt with the point of balance, preferably, being on the blade a short distance up from the guard. An axe's weight concentration is the complete opposite, being in the head. Trying to swing an axe side to side like a large sword would throw you off balance very easily, which is the last thing you want in a fight. That description of the claymore technique isn't really accurate, either. They swung the sword in a figure-eight motion, and that was only ever to get through lines of pikemen. The rest of the time they would have used half-swording and other such techniques. By the way, the Persian weapon you're thinking of is the tabar, but the overwhelming majority of them were single-bitted. The double-bitted ones that have survived are quite clearly ceremonial (they're far too ornate to just hand out to troops, and their handles are very thin). They weren't the standard weapon either. That was the spear, as is the case with virtually all pre-modern armies. Now, try and visualise the technique you're proposing. You'll presumably be holding the axe with two hands, spaced quite widely apart to maintain balance and control, but the same logic applies if you're using one hand. You swing the axe to your left- your right palm will be facing upwards (if you're right-handed). In order to maintain the momentum of that swing you'll quickly turn your hands over, with your right palm now facing downwards, and swing it back to the right. You'd end up doing a very rough figure-eight motion like I mentioned with the claymore, but with a comparatively unbalanced, less agile weapon that's only dangerous at one end rather than along the majority of its length. And you'd only be using one side of the axe too, which defeats the purpose of a double-bitted axe in the first place. In order to use both sides, you'd have to use a technique that didn't turn your hands over, almost as if you were literally sweeping with your weapon. You'd have to constantly start and stop your swings, which are going to have a limited range of motion and little momentum and as a result will be easily blocked or parried by opponents. "Attack frequency" isn't really an important thing in combat. It's about quality over quantity, looking for opportune moments to get a hit in. Wailing on a guy over and over again is just going to tire you out and make you vulnerable. This begs the question of why you would design an axe that can only be most "effectively" used when doing a movement that's at best of limited use and at worst severely awkward and dangerous. A single-bitted axe is perfectly functional and versatile in combat, with the added bonus of being lighter and cheaper to make. We've had millennia to experiment with melee weapon designs and fighting techniques. Even if your idea sounds logical to you, there's probably a good reason it doesn't have any historical precedent- it either outright doesn't work or there are far more effective solutions instead.
Actually in India there were Double-bitted axes and they WERE used in battle. They also were not really much more heavy than normal axes that had a spike or hammer on the other side. It helped to balance them as well. However, it was not something that actual Vikings used.
The special offer at the end was absolutely brilliant. I am soo making a RP character who dual-wields triple-bitted axes . . . with a third held in his teeth! (And wears a helmet with horns so he can make headbutt attacks and do goring damage while he's chopping away with his three triple-bitted axes, of course. Why pass up a chance for extra damage?) - Loranna
WarMachineBrony destroyer is great too. i like the characters alot more, but it it is rated PG so at times it can seem sort of childish or silly. but it was from the 80s so there's still sexy women, blood and awesome fight scenes
Random Whiterun Guard Have you read the Marvel Conan series? It is fantastic, I recommend both that and Savage Sword of Conan if you have any love of comic books
I think that the idea is that when your axe gets stuck in the body of your opponent you can always use the second bit (with the body still attached) a glorious sight that would be!
Double-bitted axes existed and were used in the medieval times. In fact it was the favorite weapon of Michael the Brave 1558-1601 and he was very proficient in the use of all kinds of weapons and warfare in general. It is a rare weapon because it is an "advanced" weapon requiring strength and skill to use both edges of the weapon effectively.
To be fair, though, the tripple-headed axe used by Rexor in the movie had pretty small axe heads, so it looks as if it would function as a normal battle axe.
