▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible: www.patreon.com/scholagladiatoria ▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun: facebook.com/historicalfencing/ twitter.com/scholagladiato1 ▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK: www.swordfightinglondon.com ▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest: www.matt-easton.co.uk/ www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_easton/_saved/ ▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale: www.antique-swords.co.uk/
The Norse had bows of yew, elm & ash being pretty much a longbow even if broader in the centre of stave. A Svinfylking or swine array formation was were atgeir & les specialized great axes were used for the punch on the wedge formation portion that had a multitude of weapons involves consisting of 400 odd men in the wedge with rear much smaller flanks. a tangled portion of the triangular wedge would consist of archers probably 1/4 around 100 but I doubt they were picky as you made do. Th Norse used the Svinfylking long before the Viking age in 5th century BC or 6th century BC as it works & even lived on in German tank spear head formation in ww2 for it is just Svinfylking but panzerkampfwagen. A Svinfylking mind has no option for retreat so is an all or nothing method of engagement but can allow a much smaller force to over whelm vastly larger enemy army. I can discuss other formations the Norse used against each other in more favourable match ups but this is what they likely used against the far larger southern & western armies of Europe for at least a millennia & 1/2. Good formation for a gambling man or those with little fear or anything to lose but n the Germans case in ww2 they were hoped up on meth amphetamine in panzers through the Arden woods. The great axe & the even more specialized atgeir were for shock & assault purposes as smash into the enemies line in a wedge or chops down the walls - doors to domicile or keep. Honestly a great axe still works for shock even if the enemy is on horse back though not as well suited to cavalry as spear or perhaps a atgeir it will take a horse down in most any single blow.
Great video. I read that two of the most effective weapons of the Song Dynasty against the Mongols in the 1200s AD were the battleaxe (especially long two handed ones) and the crossbow (heavy crossbows with armor penetrating bolts). So maybe the Dane Axe could've been similarly used for anti-cavalry purposes alongside spears/pikes/polearms. As the video points out, heavily armored troops with long two handed swords in Chinese kingdoms/empires were used against cavalry - I read they were used to countercharge cavalry (probably after a cavalry charge was stopped by pikes & spears).
@@IntranetusaYou sure it's an axe? I know the Chinese used 'Ji' that a spear like spike added to a ''Ge' being a pick pole arms. Some call a ge a dagger-axe but it really isn't as it is a sharp edged war pick. Ge & later Ji are rather unusual weapons though I have only used them on mock targets & not sparing my initially impression are quite favourable though I'd still prefer a voulge or atgeir as the European Equivalent. They are very similar but I prefer what I'm familiar with & a head made of one solid piece of steel as in voulge or Atgeir is a fair bit sturdier. people try to compare a Ji or a ge to a Bec de corbin along with other polles like a pole axe but they are very different armaments Voulge is as close an equivalent though still different. I know the Chinese had yue but they are just ceremonial axes as the heads are ludicrous in size even for me at 6' 4''. Today western China has flower bladed axes a traditional Muslim weapon in the region but this type of axe could it take down a horse reliably in 1 swing, possibly but I'm doubtful. I think they were a later creation around the 15th century if my memory serves but I honestly can't recall.
@@Intranetusa I'd be curious if what you think is an axe is what I mentioned or perhaps a different axe to the 2 that come to mind that would not suit what you describe?
@@arnijulian6241 Yes, it was the battleaxe. It was not a Ge (dagger axe) because this is the Song Dynasty - which is more than a thousand years after the Ge was no longer used. The Song version of the Ji was also a crescent blade with a spear - this is not as optimized against armor. Wikipedia's page for "Battle_axe" actually has an image of Song Dynasty armored infantry with battleaxes. It looks almost like a Dane Axe with a hook on the other side and a slightly protruding spike.
plus, the typical user wore mail. Levy troops relied on spears to keep enemies at bay combined with a shield to protect their torso & arms. Higher social class warriors had access to good body armor.
Another reason for bodyguards and nobles to use it is they probably had the best armour so a purely offensive weapon was more useful, similar to shields being less important with plate armour
Maybe it was also used for breaking the enemy shield wall. These guys we're certainly not in the front of a shieldwall, because well you can't hold a shield when you are swinging a daneaxe. You are also able to create some space, maybe that was the reason. Break through the enemy front line and hinder the enemy of reorganizing their shieldwall, and then break through and win the battle as the enemy shieldwall falls apart.
@@bluewizzard8843To me placing experienced two hand axe wielder in between every couple links is shield wall feels like a very natural choice to boost offensive. Diameter they preffered for shields has side overlap big enough to mostly cover one extra person standing sideways placing them directly in front of narrow "v" shape between two overlaping edges, providing nice window to not obstruct their shaft mid swing. Approaching such warrior with shield and one handed weapon looks horrible; they have superior reach that will be used to target Your head first, every blow has a chance to be stuning, or lethal, blocking by lifting shield may make a slight disruption in Your line, uncovers more of lower body for his comrades to target and they still may just try to punch the shield down utilizing strenght advantage and exhausting Your hand which means blocking with weapon has even bigger chance to backfire. I'm not sure about consistently blocking attacks by obstructing handle mid blow, or user himself, as dane axe is extremelly compact comparing to later polearms; user will always try to close his grip and do something, and I'm very sceptical of the whole push of shields idea - many helmets had open lower face and big eye slots, neck protection was still developing, being vulnerable like that and being crushed against oponents with similar protection means that first person to draw their knife has a chance to quickly slaughter couple enemies in front of them. Being shot at certainly makes them more vulnerable than shield bearers - no idea if viable rotation could've been possible to implement, or if keeping shields in the middle of formation makes any sense for their style of combat.
We must remember that the artistic representations of the time represented triumphant moments of the battle. It is very likely that two-handed axes were used against cavalry at a time when the horseman had already made their charge and were fighting from their stopped horses. In this context, two-handed axes could indeed have been used to deliver blows against the horseman after their charge, and in this scenario it would be better to use a two-handed axe to chop them down than smaller axes. Emphasizing the fact that the historical representation most likely represents decisive moments of a battle, or at least more resounding moments that those who lived at the time wanted to be represented and illustrated.
There's always exceptions, but worth noting that it's believed cavalry of the time did not charge to contact to break the line, like heavy cavalry, but would charge up and deliver a javelin with the impetus of the horse before wheeling to come again....a sort of caracole.
@@andyleighton6969 Kinda, it's worth noting they're doing that caracole until such a time as they believe they have disrupted the formation and can drive a charge home. We also have plenty of evidence of charges having occurred.
Little bit of a side track, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of weapons or use of weapons aren't correct and are simply the interpretation of an artist. Like when someone saw a lion while traveling abroad and describing it to an artist as "a very large cat" back home, the artist would draw a ridiculous looking cat (for today's standards). I think the same might have happend to battles, especially thinking of shapes of certain weapons and cleaving through someone in armor.
Personally I would be exceptionally surprised if there were any real correlation between the battle scenes depicted on the bayer tapestry and those seen in reality. I'd say they created images using the various templates of "stock troops" of the period which were seen and worked those around the few authentic details like "The King was hit by an arrow". I think what we see in the tapestry is then likely the artist's impression of what was vaguely plausible - hitting a horse with an axe is plausible - did a horse actually get hit with an axe? Well, probably, at some point... that's as far as the documentation aspect of such works go, I think.
The Stamford Bridge axeman was not holding the bridge as the Norwegians ran away; he held it while they organised their defence as they had been caught napping by Godwinsson.
@@yomauser we do not know. He could have been and he could not have been. But according to the information we have, he held the bridge while the rest of the army got their sh*t together.
@@PalleRasmussen Nah, the information we have, both Chronicles and Sagas, mentions that English crossed the ford/bridge with force and speed, taking the Vikings completely by surprise giving them little time to be ready. Meaning that if there was a man holding the line, it was taken out pretty easy, almost like if there was nobody in there. Also for the fact that this 'information' was added almost a century later by a Norman scribe, within the Chronicles and after the event that described that the Viking army had already surrendered. That's a clear example of false history.
Like almost all of this little bit of history; whatever makes you feel good. These few years of history are in the same level of fucked as early US history through folk just saying shit that makes their beloved frenchman or vikangz sound sexy and the dirty underling english sound as such. The only thing I know is that we fucking hate ourselves and our forefathers lol
The "combined arms" idea makes a lot of sense. Spears are great at threatening horsemen, but when it comes to delivering a finishing blow against a target that's kept busy by friendly spearmen, an axe is more reliable by far. Kind of niche so not a good reason to develop the weapon to begin with, but once you've got it, why not use it that way?
I very much agree. Mind that the greataxemen were elite. Just the kind of "exploitation troops" you'd send in for the kill. So the shield/spear wall stops the cavalry but is not very offensive. In comes the axemen to kill the cavalry once they lost their momentum. This makes me think of the roman shield lifting tactic against hoplites, where the romans would make room for shortswordsmen to slip in and chop up the hoplites up close. A tactic just successful enough to create the term "pyrric victory". :) The axemen here are the same idea - exploitation troops against an enemy that has been pinned down.
As a career soldier, when the cavalry shows up, your anti-cavalry weapon is whatever is in your hands. Infantrymen are issued one weapon, generally, so your anti-cavalry defense comes from tactics and some specialty troops. I would think an army equipped with shield and spear would benefit from some beefy guys with Dane axes in the second row regardless of what's coming at them.
Similarly, "assault weapons" are not any specific type, category, class, or model of modern firearms, but rather, whatever arms you happen to assault with. You could have an assault great axe or an assault club, for all that. If you don't assault with them, then they aren't assault weapons. They're just weapons.
@@seymourskinner2533 My cavalry rides tracks and tanks but the concept is the same. You have what you have. It may not be a great answer but it is the answer.
Sir John Smythe did describe how halberdiers with 6ft halberds would be behind 5 ranks of pikers in his proposed army. If lancers managed to push through these pikers, Smythe wrote that the halberdiers would attack them with blows at the head & thrusts at the faces of both horses & men. While much later, that is a specific example of axe-type weapons being used against cavalry in conjunction with pikes. (Smythe used the term "battleaxe" interchangeably with "halbard."
Whomever claims that Matt Easton is Anglo-centric isn’t watching his channel. I have learned more about Chinese, Nepalese and Indian weaponry watching his channel than any other source other than a scholarly work written specifically on those topics. Thanks for a well represented channel that’s entertaining, informative and authoritative on the subject matter presented.
I mean of course he's gonna be a little anglo-centric, he speaks English and is from England. But he absolutely gives other parts of the world good and fair coverage.
Anna Komnene's Alexiad describes her father Alexios specifically picking out axemen from the Varangian Guard to lead an attack on Norman cavalry at the battle of Dyrrachium in 1080. The attack fails because the Varangian lines get too tired out an separated from the rest of the army, but Alexios was clearly under the impression that the axes were good anti-cavalry weapons. Interestingly, it's possible that some of the Varangians who fought at Dyrrachium were veterans of Hastings, as it's thought some English nobles fled overseas after the conquest and went to be mercenaries in the Byzantine empire. Sort of a Hastings rematch in modern-day Albania, with the same result...
For what it’s worth, the Varangians won their engagement with the Normans. As you mentioned, their tactical misstep was their undoing. Anglo-Saxons/Englishmen would continue serving in Constantinople up to the end.
@@paulmer87 No, they won in the initial clash, but the Normans rallied, counterattacked and were victorious, and went on to defeat the rest of the Byzantine army as well. The Varangians were undoubtedly formidable and skilled fighters, but you can't say they 'won their engagement' when they were chased off the battlefield.
@@paulmer87 Ironically the same misstep they made in Hastings... hilariously so since plenty of those Varangians had to be Anglo-Saxon warriors that fled to Constantinople after they were beat the same way.
Great video. I read that two of the most effective weapons of the Song Dynasty against the Mongols in the 1200s AD were the battleaxe (especially long two handed ones) and the crossbow (heavy crossbows with armor penetrating bolts). So maybe the Dane Axe could've been similarly used for anti-cavalry purposes alongside spears/pikes/polearms. As the video points out, heavily armored troops with long two handed swords in Chinese kingdoms/empires were used against cavalry - I read they were used to countercharge cavalry (probably after a cavalry charge was stopped by pikes & spears).
I very much doubt the axemen took on cavalry head on for all the reasons Matt describes - but just as the original bayonet drill developed against the highland charge was to take on the man DIAGONAL to you, avoiding his targe, I can see a housecarl stepping out of the shield wall and delivering a blow to a horseman engaging the line to his left....before stepping smartly back. That would be a natural swing for a right hander and would impact the horseman's "non shield" side.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. It makes sense. After all, horses do have a self preservation instinct. There's no way ( at least in that period ) that they are going to run straight into a line of spears. So as you say, the cavalry of the time would be swapping stabs with the spearmen. not charging through. Actually, when you think about it, it was much the same in Napoleonic times. That was why the square was so effective against cavalry. The horses were not going to throw themselves on all those bayonets ( ok, there were the occasional exceptions, but generally there wasn't a chance of them doing that ) lol.
That was my thinking as well. It may not be the case, but if I could dream that up while spacing out on a Scholagladiatoria video & you came up with an identical (or very similar) tactic, it would seem logical that such efforts probably took place. Whether they were designed specifically for that use, we can likely never say. I do agree with Matt that they were generally intended to be wielded by the housecarls & other ‘professional’ members of the army.
@@zednotzee7 I'm inclined to agree, IF the spearmen are well trained, disciplined and motivated. However, there were many instances of poorly trained, inexperienced food soldiers breaking formation and running from heavy cavalry.
Concerning the Chinese Chang Dao which you show, they were actually used for different purposes. Ming dynasty officers played around with how to incorporate them into the Ming military and decided to use them as personal defense weapons by trained and armored crossbowmen and later arquebusiers/musketmen. The large size gives the user an advantage but is still light enough and small enough to reasonably carry on the person and draw as a sidearm when faced with an emergency situation where they have to engage an enemy. The Chang Dao and later the Miao Dao were carried by musketmen and later the standard infantryman all the way through the early Republican era and even saw use in the desperate fight against Imperial Japan. The specific sword you presented is a recreation of an Imperial Guardsman's sidearm. His main weapon was originally the crossbow and later he would be equipped with a musket.
If you imagine some kind of shieldwall, it makes perfectly sense to have some really tough, experienced guys standing behind, with a long reaching axe. Standing there, looking over the shoulders of the guys in front, for just that weak point in the enemy line- and then WHAM!
@hoegild1 That's the way I understood it to be used. From behind the main line, over the top of the shield wall, not to be swung in a chop but pulled across the opponents head, neck or shoulders who would be pushing forward and unable to back away. But I'm sure it could be used on cavalry too.
Tactically I think a Dane axe was meant to mainly be an anti shield/maille weapon. Most levied troops only have a shield for protection, no metal body armor (not counting textile armor). That Dane axe could easily either smash or hook a shield, deal a bit of damage to either the hand if smashing or small cut to the chest/shoulders if hooking, and open the enemy up for your spearmen to stab easily. If you sprinkle your second line with these professionals wielding Dane axes, the wooden shaft means you can pretty safely swing over the top of a spearmen who crouches down a bit. Each swing probably doesn't kill a man, but it creates easy opportunities for the spearmen to kill. Since berserkers were known to not wear armor, the spearman's shield (and body) can act as protection for him.
I always thought it was closer to the way halberds are used in pike blocks. In the sense that you can use them to chop down horsemen who have gotten in amongst your men and are bogged down. Obviously projecting shields and spears first seems like the best move. Does this make this anti-cavalry weapons? I don’t think so. I think it’s more that they are useful weapons for supporting a shield wall. This is conjecture on my part but perhaps Dane axe men were also used at the head of the “boars snout” formation for maximum shock at the point of impact given the nature of the all or nothing approach of the boars snout. Alternatively I could see them being used at an opportune moment when the enemy is wavering to surge forward finish them off. Just my two-cents. I find your suggestion of them being a bodyguards weapon compelling as well.
Yeah, tho the notion that the pike block was to defend against cavalry really is a 17th century phenomenon and coincided with when it was on the way out. In the 15th and 16th centuries it was primarily an offensive formation employed against enemy infantry. Most famously against Burgundian longbowmen.
@@hjorturerlend Well of course spears are not exclusively for cavalry either. Spears and pikes will kill infantry too and will do plenty of that. I am just saying that long pointy sticks are your best bet if you want to deal with horsemen. Certainly in particular during that initial charge.
@@hjorturerlend It has to be remembered that cavalry 17th century was often useing pistols not swords, they have to ride up close and slow to fire there pistols. Giveing plenty of time to shoot back at them. Cavalry swords struggled to reach the infantry, the Cavalry has to be next to them, and horses where unarmoured and an easy target, ideal to spear with a pike or sword. In the early 17th century armour was seen as the way forwards, just be bullet proof and out shoot the musketers. Later they settled on charging in to broken formations with swords.
i think the axes were developed to to break the annoying shield wall that was used by everyone at that time. there is one interesting account of a battle between the byzantine army and the pechenegs where the pechenegs had made a defensive circle with wagons and the varangians just chopped right through it with their dane axes. i think its also a "macho" weapon meant for the largest, strongest guys. if youre big and strong enough you can use a dane axe one handed. whereas a weaker person wouldnt be able to use it effectively even with two hands.
@@arielquelme but probably not in northern europe, specifically in scandinavia.. as anything else than a poetic term for an army. You should take a look at Rolf Warmings rechearch
I thought the more routine role of the Dane axe / great axe in shield wall fighting was to be able to strike over the friendly shield wall into the enemy shield wall, hitting heads, striking and potentially breaking shields and even catching the top rims of shields with the lower hook of the axe on the return, further disrupting the enemy shield wall. Maybe I picked that up from fiction at some point?
It seems believable; that’s supposedly how the Dacian falx was used in earlier centuries, such that the Roman army had to adopt reinforced helmets and armguards to defend against it (the latter because it would reach around somebody’s shield). Slightly different solutions to the same problem: I can’t use a spear to whack the guy who’s behind a big defensive formation.
When your axe is only about 5 foot long, you basically can't strike 'over' people In front of you. Weapons like this need more space to use effectively. You can strike between but when everyone else is using 7 foot spears you are really outreached. My opinion is that they were used much like later great swords, bodyguarding in a civilians context, and area control or guarding banners etc. on the battlefield
@@derigel7662 The pike isn't even anti-cav. It's anti everything the way it was deployed on the battlefield. It just so happens that it's also more effective when massed against cavalry than most other weapons.
@@TheWhiteDragon3 thanks for making my argument for me lol i know that. Every weapon is anti everything. Its entire purpose is destroy what you're aming at. Just differing methods: stab. Slash, crush.
I read that two of the most effective weapons of the Song Dynasty against the Mongols in the 1200s AD were the battleaxe (especially long two handed ones) and the crossbow (heavy crossbows with armor penetrating bolts). So maybe the Dane Axe could've been similarly used for anti-cavalry purposes alongside spears/pikes/polearms. As the video points out, heavily armored troops with long two handed swords in Chinese kingdoms/empires were used against cavalry - I read they were used to countercharge cavalry (probably after a cavalry charge was stopped by pikes & spears).
As an Asian who loves Asian history (and I mean Chinese, Japanese, local [I'm Malaysian, so that means the time period from before the Malaccan Sultanate until WW II], and more), I can definitely say that the Chinese horse-chopping sword (斬馬刀) were really used by what's termed as "shocktroops" as they were specialized weapons. These were mainly meant to take down the mounts unlike in other cases, like maybe Europe, where the weapons may be used to take down both mounts and riders. Primary part of the mount targetted tended to be the forelegs as the leftover inertia tended to spell doom to the rider when the mount went down. Also, the same style of sword was also adopted by the Japanese in the form of the zanbatou (pronounced zambatou) which shares the same kanji (Chinese characters) as the Chinese weapon. They're rarer than their Chinese counterparts but were also used by small groups of shocktroops just like formations of nodachi wielders (which also tended to be uncommon).
Hey Matt, would be cool to see you talk about the history and use of the Kopis and its relations to the Falcata and Machaira! Great video as always and please continue to be Matt Easton
In general I agree, but you mentioned no pictures showing Anglo-Saxons fighting on horseback so I wanted to mention the Aberlemno Stone in Scotland which shows a battle usually interpreted as the Picts fighting the Northumbrians (at the Battle of Dún Nechtain, when people go far enough to claim it as a specific event) shows both sides using cavalry
Yeah, that jumped to my mind too: Suggests that if Anglo-Saxon (era) Britain at times did not use cavalry, it likely wasn't for want of suitable horses.. There is also armed man on a horse involved in a fight shown on one of the decorative elements of the sutton hoo helmet. Like the Aberlemno stones it is a lot earlier than 1066, obviously (and, actually Scandinavian), but interesting regardless.
The way you described their role at the end gave me this image of the greataxe being a cultural symbol for someone willing to die fighting. The idea of the king's man leaving his shield behind and taking up the axe, to show that he knows he's going to die, and everyone around him also knows it and recognizes the sacrifice, and the enemy charging in realizing that this madman they're approaching is never going to surrender or run away.
I think the "dane axe _were made_ to slay horses"-thing is a modern conjecture, because we have depictions of dane axes _being used_ to slay horses but not a single one saying "we used our _specifically made_ anti-cavalry dane axes". Today we see a cool weapon and, conditioned by decades of videogames, think immediately that cool equiptment must serve a very specific task rather than those weapons just being used due to personal preference, financial means, badge of rank or fashion by it's wielders. Also, we must keep in mind that even the most accurate tapestries and illuminations are still propaganda art, meaning the guy commissioning it and the guy weaving/painting it will show cool stuff: Like some fierce huscarl cutting down a horse with his badass axe.
@@mikkel2241 Exactly, I mean there are dozens of movies about SEALs but literally just one about the motor pool and I'd wager it's the later that actually wins wars. People haven't changed all that much for the last few millenia. Who knows if there was a Michael Bay of tapestries...
@@mnk9073 the funny thing about this conversation is that every one having watched a documentary and actually paying attention, will know that almost every "historical" number of men or equipment on the enemy side is almost always taken with a grain of salt, some of them you even need a f mountain of salt but still.
I sometimes think that the aspect of intimidation is left out of a weapon’s effectiveness. A big sword or big axe may, in actual combat terms, be quite limited in its use, but it may be very effective in putting the fear into your opponent to such an extent that the person wielding it exerts an influence on the battle quite beyond their actual fighting impact.
Hi Matt. Very interesting video. There’s one extra historical source that I have heard of from Ireland about the same time period. The earl strongbow’s nephew was killed by an Irish axeman and the standard taken in an ambush. Thanks
Excellent video, which covers plenty of stuff I've thought about. I hope you have time to read it all - this could get long. Beginning with with the Scandi-sphere: Danes, Norse, English, Irish, Orkney, Iceland. Your default mode of war was the spear armed shieldwall (Some would have swords or axes, but it's mostly a big pushing match where cohesion keeps your side alive). I recall reading sagas where two lords called out their spearmen and set them at each other. Meanwhile the lord and his chosen men, watch and enjoy some mead. As the shieldwalls tire and start to waver, the wisest lord commits his men to break the line. What the axe lacks in defensive / line fighting power, it more than compensates as a shock weapon for landing that decisive blow. The Scandi-sphere didn't really go for sophisticated tactics. The Lords chosen men were professional warriors, happy to fight with axe, with spear and shield if required, and to use horses to travel between engagements. The continental horsemen were a growing influence. Most accounts I've seen suggest their horses were still fairly small (14 hands, the size of a pony - the rider would not tower above a large man standing on foot). Shieldwall and spears are the best defence against mobile horsemen. But (as Matt says) the axes may be an ideal implement to one-shot those riders once the spears have halted their charge. I think care is due when extrapolating to China, or even to late medieval Europe. Chinese military methods have seem many evolutions, but always features polearms, missile troops and mounted troops. They often produced treatise on elaborate small unit tactics for units like 2 long spears, 2 short spears, 2 swordsmen, 2 crossbows and 2 archers. I regard some of that as fanciful, as training exercise or for small elite units (like the gang of Dane axe man). I believe the dominant way of war (especially against the barbarian tribes on the border) was a shieldwall backed by missile men, and cavalry in reserve to pursue. We know during the Italian wars that pikes were dominant. But when two blocks of pikes locked together, ways were found to break the stalemate. Chosen men (see a parallel with the earlier shieldwalls) with zweihanders, sword and buckler, halberds - something more agile than the pike. These worked on the flanks or between the files to kill the tied up enemy and break the deadlock. These men were eventually reduced to a few polearm men who guarded the unit's ensign, while firearms replaced their role in unlocking the pikeman scrum. And so we arrive at the era of pike and shot (shotte optional).
I am not saying this means that Dane axes are anti-cavalry weapons exactly (see my other comment for my views on that subject.) but some potential evidence pointing in the direction that they were introduced with cavalry in mind is that dane axes appear right around the time more people are buried with things like spurs or other horse tack. There is at least a correlation there according to archaeologists.
That could also just mean Dane axes are extremely good weapons to chop up, finish off dehorsed heavy calvaryman. I don’t think a horse that has been skewered ins going to be calm about it. The calvaryman probably dismount most the time but be thrown off.
That could also just mean Dane axes are extremely good weapons to chop up, finish off dehorsed heavy calvaryman. I don’t think a horse that has been skewered ins going to be calm about it. The calvaryman probably dismount most the time but be thrown off.
I heard this anti-cavalry theory with greatswords, chinese changren dao etc, Odachi and many more greatswords and great axes. However in case of the chinese one you showed iirc it was adopted from the Japanese Pirates and to counter their long swords and to kill infantry. The manual also is all about fighting vs spear and infantery. The Greatswords were used not only for bodyguard duty but also to drive back enemies trying to break into the formation. That is the most important point. There is a swiss report iirc that demanded great axes to counter the outer-canton swiss people who had greatswords. Almost always those kind of weapons are behind the pike/spearmen etc and seem to have the function to protect the spearmen/banners or to counter-attack. I know of one depiction of the battle of pavia where two or three Landsknechte are shown fighting against some horseriders with lances. However the painting suggest rather that they are desperate and their formation broken. The Diebold Schilling Chronicles also show swiss halberdiers and pikers fighting burgundian/german soldiers that have bills and war axes. Woodcut from Erhard Schön about the job of the Landsknechte talks about how the greatswords prevent infantry from breaking in and the halberdiers actually fighting the cavalry by pulling them down and seperating the rider from cuirass. In Japan the Odachi comes up in the nanbokuchou period where they seemed to have begun fighting more on foot so imo in all cases there is no real evidence for their purpose being anti-cavalry. And it makes sense that they were rather used to drive back enemies that may break up the formation. But that would also explain why it was occasionally used against cavalry simply because cavalry would try to break in. One other point is, how effective would be cutting weapons against a horse. I know of at least one manual talking about how pikes are better than muskets because the horse often doesnt realize its being shot vs the pike where the resistance is still there. So even if delivering blows to a horse could maybe be not as effective if only muscles are hit. Hope it makes sense.
The specific sword that Matt showed (a Ming dynasty Changdao) was to counter the Wokou, which is featured in the manuals you mention. However, there were earlier two handed swords (big beefier ones than the one Matt has) called Zhanmadao (horse chopping dao) created during the Song dynasty (over 500 years before the Wokou troubles) and there are historical texts stating that it was specifically for cutting down heavy cavalry (such as the Iron Pagoda Cavalry of the Jurchen Jin Dynasty).
@@MisterKisk Oh i heard about them too but iirc people still pointed out that the term is not clear and that apparently in some cases they may have meant an polearm that was also called horse chopper. I remember one manual mentioning a tactic where they did train to cut off horse legs but author of the article said that its not clear what exactly the weapoon is. A different article seems to imply that it was glaive like weapon. What i meant was that the sword matt showed was/is also often referred to as horse cutter when in fact it was adopted to counter pirates. Would be interesting to see other sources regarding the horse cutting !
Hi Matt, it might be worth mentioning that quite a few depictions of people using great axes show them being used with the ‘off hand’ on top. It seems kind of counter-intuitive but it means you’re swinging from the unshielded side of your opponent. I imagine this would be very effective against cavalry who have become bogged down in melee. The axe was also synonymous with Gaelic Irish armies all the way up to the 16th Century and there are one or two descriptions of the gallowglass using what are effectively Dane Axes. Gerald of Cambrensis describes Norman era Irish axemen placing their thumb on the back of the handle to aid with edge alignment.
I feel like because of games like total war, movies, and later period line warfare people conceptualize medieval and ancient units as being groups of 50-100 men all using the same weapons and armor where the entire unit had the same strengths and weaknesses going against other types of uniform groups. I imagine in reality you probably had a similarity to modern warfare with differently equipped fighters using their strengths covering each other's weaknesses to create a more flexible unit.
I did like the chappie at @1:20 shot of the Canterbury Embroidery who seems to have either broken his axe haft at the axe end or the axe head fly off. Definitely a significant emotional moment for him.
It might be worth mentioning the aztec macuauhuitl, essentially a greatsword. While obviously not developed for use against cavalry, there are spanish accounts of it being used effectivly as such, in conjuction with spears.
One last thing about viking use of horses, their are mentions of raiding partys to use captured horses for raiding. Only in the big decisive battles is no cavalry involved.
She choppin' cavalry Choppin' cavalry She chop UH! Great video, Matt. The problem I think I had, coming from a gaming background, is thinking of weapons in a duel or small fight context, and not the proper military context with mixed weapons in a unit to support each other.
Great video Matt! To comment on the Chinese side; yes the big sabres certainly were used in a body-guard roll as is evident by the Ming "Imperial Guard" Changdao model you have by LK Chen. We can also see these big sabres being depicted in various court scenes from the very beginning of the Qing. (Side note, the role of "Horse Chopper [Zhanmadao] was a polearm in the Ming, and wouldn't turn back to the sword until the Qing, but I digress). However, if we go back to when the term Zhanmadao/Horse Chop Sabre really starts to take off in the Song Dynasty, we do have both the court records of *how* they were made (30cm grip, 90cm blade, big disc guard, and ring on the end) as well as how they were deployed. I will write out the Chinese Text below, and follow with a machine translation. Hopefully Kane Shen or The Scholar General can come by and help with my Chinese! 宋史, 志第一百四十四，兵五（乡兵二): 若遇贼于山林险隘之处，先以牌子贼，次以劲弓强弩与神臂弓射贼先锋，则矢不虚发，而皆穿心达臆矣。或遇贼于平原广野之间，则马上用弩攒射，可以一发而尽殪。兼牌子与马上用弩，皆已试之效，不可不讲。 前所谓劲马奔冲，强弩掎角，其利两得之，而(西夏)贼之步跋子与铁鹞子皆不足破也。又步兵之中，必先择其魁健材力之卒，皆用斩马刀，别以一将统之，如唐李嗣业用陌刀法。遇铁鹞子冲突，或掠我阵脚，或践踏我步人，则用斩马刀以进，是取胜之一奇也。
"If encountering bandits in mountainous or rugged terrain, first use shields against them, then employ strong bows, powerful crossbows, and divine arm crossbows to shoot the forefront of the bandits. This way, arrows won't be shot in vain but will all penetrate their hearts and reach their vitals. When facing bandits in open plains, use crossbows from horseback, allowing you to eliminate them with a single volley. The effectiveness of both shields and horseback crossbows has been tested and should not be neglected. As mentioned earlier, the use of powerful horses for charging and strong crossbows for flanking yields dual benefits. These tactics are effective against both infantry and cavalry of the (Western Xia) enemies. Among infantry, choose robust and skilled soldiers, all armed with horse-cutting swords, led by a capable commander, similar to the way Tang's Li Sizhao employed the "mo-dao" technique. When dealing with clashes from iron-cavalry or foot soldiers threatening our formation, use horse-cutting swords to advance, creating a surprising advantage for victory."
Speaking as an axeman, I'm looking very thoughtfully at that upper point. It's fairly well documented that horses turn away from pikes. I cannot imagine a horse continuing to charge if several of those upper points were directed at it. Now, you've already demonstrated that a good, sharp point will split mail, I expect a thrust from one of those could do a rider significant damage. An axe can certainly deflect a lance. Robert the Bruce dealt with that. I suggest, courteously, that you might consider that splendid axe as a thrusting weapon as well as a chopper. Good 'ealth, John Warner, Australia
I've always thought that the 2handed weapons were for crowd control, as you've stated: bridges, gates, choke points and the like. Give your "berserkers' some heavy armor and a big weapon and send them in to the thick of the enemy. I think the Northmen developed the axe into a weapon because they used various forms of axe daily; to build, for firewood etc. This familiarity led some of the poorer soldiers to grab what was on hand to defend their homes when the raids came and they liked it. The wealthier ones noticed the damage they'd done and tried it and they liked it too. Also an axe head has much less iron than a sword andbus therefore cheaper. The Vikings (raiders), being sailors as well, noted the hand axe (tomahawk) was easier to use in tight spaces aboard ship and easier to carry several in case you needed to throw one. Being a 'little' guy myself (6'4", 250lbs) I prefer an axe. With which I can reach out and smash a swordsman's shield before he can reach me. The curved edge gives more cutting surface, leaving bigger wounds and breaking bones under maille or denting plate. And I believe that the tilt of the bit, if you were to draw a line from tip to tip and continue to the handle shows the pivot point on the handle for most power in a strike. Merely my undereducated opinion, and not backed by any research other than application in woodcutting axes.
Long time viewer, first time commenter. Half way through your video, I came to the same conclusion as you did. These weapons were not originally designed as anti calvary, but due to their characteristics, they happened to be quite brutal after the horse and rider have already had their charge broken and were now stuck in combat.
your idea matches my first thought that spears were used to stop a cavalry charge's momentum, and then others would run forward with axes long enough to hit someone on horseback to finish them off. I think I've heard similar cases of halberds used in conjuction with pikes. The pikes are the primary formation, but there is room for halberds to exploit gaps in the enemy pike formation.
On the Sutton Hoo helmet you actually have a cavalryman fighting against a foot soldier, that is Anglo-Saxon. Similar helmets from Sweden from especially Vendel, Valsgärde, represent the same thing and even in Germany. Furthermore there were sacrificed horses in the Vendel and Valsgärde boat-graves for these same 6th-7th century warriors. Perhaps the elite was on horseback and the common folk on foot, which prefigures medieval chivalry. The Viking period is dominated by the uprise of common folk, so perhaps the horses were neglected a little, but you still find in royal burials extremely elaborate horse gear from the Viking periods.
Very well said. Essentially, Anglosaxons and Vikings, who weren't good at horse-fighting, used against horses whatever they had in hand. If an axeman faced cavalry, well, he would use his axe as best as he could. And a skilled axeman would score some kills before being defeated in turn. So, it wasn't an anti-cavalry weapon, but if needed, it could score some victories. The descriptions we have can all fit into this frame.
Mr Easton, my son and I really enjoy your channel, thanks for all the great content. As for the Dane axe vs Calvary debate, our question for you is: how did a Calvary charge vs shield wall encounter actually work in that time period? Did the horsemen slam into the shield wall and try to push through, or did they get near, use thier spears and then ride past the wall? If it’s the latter, having a few men on the edges of your shield wall that can swing a weapon in large horizontal arcs at passing horse legs and riders is probably very useful. Anyhow, we’re curious as to the actual tactics might play into a weapons use. Two opponents swinging at each other in a static environment is one thing, a big guy with a huge axe darting in and out of a screaming mess of horses and men is quite another
From what I know of the later periods you compare to, the guys who get two handed swords or shorter polearms in a pike and shot formation are given those weapons in part because they're reliable men and can be used when everyone else is in disarray, but that doesn't necessarily mean a rearguard, that can also mean plugging gaps when the pikes are in disorder. I think these are the spiritual antecedents of the era of linear warfare's spontoons, serving as badges of the esteem of their army and useful weapons if the formation is temporarily broken to give time and protect the colors.
The answer is as simple as a guy carrying a Dane axe isn't carrying a spear...and if a horse got chopped in the head by one it probably looked crazy! So it got put in the artwork.
Something to keep in mind when studying historical accounts is that through most of history accounts were written for a specific audience, mainly nobility or sometimes one particular person, that would have the general knowledge of what would occur in the types of events being recorded. People today assume what was written down historically was written like history is today, to be used by students or a general audience. Also too often people take something that was written about in one account about a specific event and try to apply that broadly over a whole historical era as the norm when the reason some specific thing was mentioned in the first place was because of it's unusual nature.
If we look closely at the bayeux tapestry, the greataxe-wielders hold them with the left hand closest to the head and the right hand for support. Likely they were meant to attack the right side of an enemy were he would typically have a sword or one-handed axe and the shield on the other side. Against the greataxe coming from the greataxemans left side, the ordinary footman's shield would be of little use unless he turned around, he would have to parry with a smaller weapon and be at a disadvantage. If I had a greataxe against cavalry, my strategy would be to thrust the head upwards to put the enemy lance away and then go for the horse's neck.
9 месяцев назад
I'm not an expert. but I feel like it would bring down anything when you hit with the cutty side of it.
I agree with all your points. I don't see how a formation with two-handed axes can stop a cavalry charge on it's own, so my best guess is, as you said, that it's a weapon deployed behind the spearwall. At most, I would think a unit armed with them could try and get on the flank of a cavalry unit that's already stopped. However, both things would be probably equally useful against infantry, so I don't even see why it would be expected to be good specifically against cavalry. At the very least, it's pretty obvious that you're not going to easily stop a cavalry charge with those alone, so we can bet the anti-cavalry thing was something that came up later. Maybe the occasions described on the texts we've got are exceptional cases and they became a "legend" on how they are useful against cavalry, maybe the importance of the axes was overemphasized and any other weapon would have done the same, maybe it was just confirmation bias where they (or maybe us) only heard of those times where Dane axes were successfuly used against cavalry and hence it was assumed they were good against it while ignoring the many times where they weren't useful, or maybe something else happened that gave the impression these axes are good against cavalry. At least we can assume it wasn't designed for that purpose. Something that can prove it is later halberds and simmilar weapons, which had either longer reach and / or a spike at the end and would indeed be better suited to fight cavalry. Now, a little detail that may give the montante and the horse-cutting sword a bit more worth against cavalry is precisely the fact that they do have a point at the end. While they aren't spears, they could be used simmilarly against cavalry in case you needed them to, even if it wasn't optimal. For the Dane axe to be at least that useful... I can't see it.
There's a beautiful series about "History of Warfare" by Schwerpunkt that deals in some serious detail with the Scandinavian warfare of the time. I'd love to see a coop
6:38 when the Vikings first arrived in Frankia the franks mostly fight on foot to. The frankish way of fighting on horseback developed in response to viking raids, and together with strategic fortifications made Frankia uninteresting for viking raids.
You should do a collab with Rolf Warming from “society for combat archaeology” about shiels, shieldwalls and viking age warfare in northern europe… it would be very educational
In Frank McLynn's book '1066 Year of the three battles' the author suggests the great axe was a weapon favoured by the Saxon Housecarls. The great axe is described as devastating again the Norman mounted troops. 'The Saxon equalizer'.
I can see useful, non lethal reason why a greataxe is good for royal bodyguards - crowd control in the throneroom, or when the king walks out among his own people. You could grip both ends and use the haft to push back the peasants - half a dozen guys with these can instantly create a good sized moving barrier around the boss in a situation where they don't actually want to hurt or even put too much fear in to people, just control them. And we've all seen movies where guards cross their axes in front of a door as a warning - the intimidation factor is significant, especially if the bodyguards have good armour / fancy clothes.
Matt: I would propose that a two-handed axe could have been developed for breaking up a shieldwall where it could not only potentially split a shield, but also be used to rip away that shield to enable a comrade to then spear the exposed defender. Whether a Norman cavalryman was able to spear an axeman first would be dependent upon whether you subscribe to the over-arm or couched lance theory. In the former, the axeman is more likely to be able to initially bring down the horse (as also shown the in the Bayeux Tapestry) before being skewered . Additionally, and at Hastings in particular, a cavalry charge is unlikely to be going full tilt as shown in the cinema especially as the horse was likely to be tired after two or three charge attempts, carrying an armoured rider and, was also going uphill.
You mentioned the Chinese zhanmadao (horse cutting sword) but I've seen sources that in the Song Dynasty large numbers of troops were equipped with two handed axes to fight against Jin cavalry. Also, maybe you should look into the use of axes by the gallowglass of Ireland and the Western Isles of Scotland.
I think the billhook is kind of similar in that I’ve never subscribed to the hook being there to unhorse cavalry (or when they put a little spike on the back of a glaive or whatever), like I just think it’s gonna be much more useful for fighting another guy with a pole arm on foot or penetrating and digging into things and people and that the ability to unhorse cavalry was probably a novelty trick that didn’t happen often
There was also the Battle of Dyrrhachium where the Varangian Guard (mostly Dane Axe equipped Anglo-Saxons who had fled Britain) were used effectively against Norman knights. So successful in fact, that they lost contact with the rest of the Byzantine army, and were then defeated by spearmen and crossbowmen attacking their flank. It seems that the main effect of the Dane axe against horses, was that it caused fear in the Norman's horses seeing all that blood when they did connect. But there is no reason to think they were less effective against infantry. My understanding is that the role of the Dane axe was similar to later era poleaxes and to some extent halbards were to project a maximum amount of offensive power against narrow lengths of battle lines, and break enemy formations there. When part of the main line, the main weakness of the Pole axe was their defensive capabilities, especially against missiles. So like pole axes they were primarily used by heavily armored elite soldiers, who depended less on a shield for protection. Ideally, though, I believe the Dane axe wielding soldiers should not be in the front rank at the beginning of a battle, but rather be held in reserve until a part of the enemy line is starting to lose cohesion, and then deliver a decisive blow there. This role also made this weapon an excellent choice for a group of hirdmen, hearthmen or guard unit, as they would have the training and wealth needed and also be close to the king or general when he decided to commit them. In other words, they were used to WIN the battle, rather than enabling the King to flee.
Remember that in the battle of Hastings the anglo-saxons were on a hill. That position alone could have made the use of Dane axes more practical than in other situations. And the Bayeux tapestry presents just that. If one thing is prevalent there it doesn't mean was common in all other military contexts.
With the historic sources. it could the case that the sources were recording the Dane axe vs horse because it was seen as an exception or a special case
Spot on. With no thrusting attack the great axe can't reply to a cavalry charge. What it can do is sally forth to cut down cavalry that has bogged down. The big difference between a spear and a great axe is the great axe maximizes the combat potential of an individual and the spear maximizes the combat potential of a unit that can mutually support.
I have another theory.... Dane Axes were also used in conjunction with armor that was highly resistant to spears. Perhaps what made the axe high status also had something to do with the fact that people could afford armor that would protect them against spears. So, if you're a guy in a full suit of chainmail with a solid helmet, they have to win the fight by getting a face shot while you close the gap and deliver a blow that is going to incapacitate someone through the vast majority of armor of the period. Like, if you get whacked with a dane axe and you're wearing mail or chain, bones are going to be broken.
I agree with your points. Something to add that you didn't touch upon. Much like the improved armor of later periods lead to the use of two handed weapons because they were needed against armor and also they no longer needed a shield. In the "viking era" not everyone had top notch armor, it was expensive and shields did the most to protect you anyways. Housecarls were far more likely than the average fighter to be well armored for the time, and thus can afford to forgo a shield to use a two handed weapon. Also, in that period/era I don't think they were particularly hung up on specialization. They wouldn't get a Dane axe for fighting cavalry, they wouldn't get it for fighting infantry. They would get it for fighting. That's it, just fighting.
Question, I have purchased the Cold Steel Dane/Great Axe. I know it is not a perfect copy. But I had to get one for my collection. What I want to know is how long does the haft need to be? The one on mine is 4 foot long. The one you are using looks longer, maybe 5 or 6 feet long? You make great video's by the way. P.S. I agree, it was more then likely used to break Shield walls or Spear lines.
Absolutely agree with your thoughts on this, its a fearsome weapon and we see it strongly associated with the Varangian guard as well in that role of prestige/intimidating/characteristic weapon of a body guard.
I think did a video on this already. Though, I think the misconceptions kinda comes from the battle of Hastings happening on a hill. If your group is on the top of a hill and your enemy is charging the bottom of a hill, you wouldn’t need as long a weapon to hit talkers targets like calvarymen with a shorter weapon like a Dane axe.
The Mammen axe found in Denmark, eponymous of a Viking decorative style, is lavishly decorated, so may have been a status symbol of a bodyguard or noble. It was still smaller than the "Dane axe" of the 11th century.
Without watching yet, I think that to be useful "anti horse" weapon, the weapon need to have pretty hefty reach, and it doesn't seem that all that many two handed axes did. They seem to very rarely exceed 4 feet in length, and the way one uses an axe means that the reach is going to be generally shorter than reach of a 4 feet sword, for example.
The Varangian Guard (armed with great axes) defeated Norman cavalry at Battle of Dyrrhachium in 1081. Admittedly, they were backed by archers and again, there’s no suggestion this is what great axes were designed for. Byzantium being what it was, I imagine this is all documented somewhere but I wouldn’t know where to start with primary sources. It’s on page 166 of Vol 1 of Chas Oman “History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages” if that helps.
I think they must have absolutely been working alongside spearmen, but maybe the axes get the mention because everyone had spears while not everyone had huge axes at that time.
@@scholagladiatoria Certainly possible - Oman makes no mention of spears but was of course writing at the end of the 19th C so obvs not a primary source.
@@big_dave_7178 I believe so, yes. According to Oman, the Varangians drove the cavalry into the sea and in so doing became separated from the rest of the Byzantine army and were cut down. Survivors fled into a church which the Normans set on fire.
The Varangians win the initial encounter, but Robert Guiscard's wife Sikelgaita rallies the troops and gets them to counter-attack. The Varangians are by that point tired out and separated from the rest of the army and are routed. But the Alexiad does specifically say that Alexios picks out the men with axes to lead the attack on the Norman cavalry, so he must have thought they would be effective in that role.
Spear wall in the front, two handed axes behind the spearman is how I use them in Bannerlord. Works pretty darn good. Obviously, just a game but the horses get slowed by the spears + the 3-4 ranks deep of people then the line breakers (axeman) charge in and cut them down.
I think a lot of people picture cavalry attacking food soldiers by riding past them swinging swords, axes, maces and war hammers. In fact, cavalry would often ride right over food solders trampling them. That's a big problem if the foot soldier is armed with something like a two-handed ax. ..... Also, it's worth mentioning that written accounts often spend a disproportionate amount of time on events that were considered unusual or impressive at the time like a highly skilled professional soldier killing a horse or rider with an ax.
I don't think it gets said enough that having a somewhat specialized or niche weapon in the context of a shield wall fighting unit makes a good deal of sense. Human reactions to shields being pushed into them and spears or swords aimed at their heads will make folks duck and seek to get more 'inside' their own shield, having a weapon with the ability to successfully hit behind and below a shield or pulling a shield in a team context would be useful. While I can't ack it up with any pure sources, it also seems that the Dane Axe has a mildly halberdish quality in a much smaller and less complicated package in that the toe is more that capable of basic thrusting.
Funny, your theory on their employment being behind a front shield wall pike line buffer is exactly the best way I've found to deploy them in Bannerlord. 😂
Seems pretty simple to me. If you're going to battle, you aren't going to carry a spear *and* a dane axe. Some men carried the dane axe. If they then encountered cavalry... well they were obviously going to use said axe. It's not as rough a prospect as using a sword- which they may have been carrying as a backup weapon- against a man on horseback. I think we worry too much about defining things, and what they're meant to be, rather than what they most likely were used for. that's all, we don't need to fiddle around worrying about intent.
I believe there's sources stating Richard the Lionheart used a Dane Axe at least once while on the Crusades. And I imagine it's very useful as an anti-horse weapon, if the horse is standing still. I've done this in Mount and Blade and I think something similar could work in real life. This has worked better in mods with slower combat. Where units have lots of health and armour, the spears aren't doing a lot of damage. I stand behind a body of spearmen with a two handed axe or sword. Enemy cavalry gets stuck on the spearmen. They've come to a halt in front of, or inside the formation. They're being essentially stunlocked by spear men all around. I just hack into unarmoured horses, watch the rider Tumble to the ground and either leave him to the surrounding spearmen, or finish him myself. The sticking point compared to real life is how horses behave, especially because corpses don't clip through human beings. But attacking the horse from the back, or within 60 or so degrees would mean the horse probably cant see you. And the rider can't easily reach you.
A question. You talk about the Norman cavalry as riding huge horses. Several things I've seen from archaeological sources and historical illustrations shows the Norman horses as being comparative ponies rather than horses. Averaging 13 to 14 hands. Thoughts?
I immediately think of a late Greek source talking about a rare form of Thracian weapon. I will try to find all the details but it has been a while since I read it. From memory though, a weapon that was the relative of the Rhomphaia but basically the polearm version (much shorter blade and a long shaft) was used in the flanks/rear of spear formations. Basically if horsemen didn't give the spear formation a wide enough berth when avoiding them, someone with one of these reaches out going for the horse, and the concave cutting edge + weight/speed of the horse= pretty gruesome laceration to the horses side or legs and that is one horsemen going down. So while not the same weapon or tactic it is totally plausible to me that large 2 handed chopping weapons can be used with spearmen in a bonus anti-cavalry role, does that mean any of it is true? IDK. Also confusingly I don't remember the name of the weapon (which makes searching super difficult) and I keep getting the much later and probably unrelated weapon also called a Rhomphaia that the Varangian Guard were supposed to have preferred.
@@edumatoso214 Nah Falx is usually shorter than the Thracian Rhomphaia, though there are big two hand only Falx. The Falx is much more of a Dacian thing (though others did use it), the weapon I am talking about is more like a Rhomphaia but the blade is much shorter and it is on like a 6 ft ish (so short for a spear shaft) haft. I have to dig up the name if I am ever going to find references to it on the internet need the right keywords. Without it you run into the whole issue of different weapons having the same name. Like the much later weapon I mentioned the Varangians, Byzantine sources describe it as both a two-handed sword or like a poleaxe sized glaive ish type weapon with a concave cutting edge. They called both of those weapons "Rhomphaia" even though neither of them are a Thracian Rhomphaia (though probably related). This mean google has no fucking idea what you are talking about and will just bring up either of those weapons or the falx and sica and not what I want. Just a bit frustrating.
The Varangian guard, were the bodyguard of the Byzantine Emperor, they were famed for use of the Dane axe. If one looks at the Dane axe as a prototype of the Bardiche, in one evolutionary branch and the prototype of the knightly poleaxe in the west. Then the bodyguards of first Knaz and Tsars were armed with axes. Though relegated to ceremonial roles by that time, even at the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II, the photos depicted guardsmen on either side of the throne armed with bardiches. Then the axe was also a symbol of Royal justice, in the form of the headsman’s axe.
I always wondered whether they were initially developed because there was the need for such a weapon on the battlefield or because they looked cool and intimidating and were a status symbol. But I can imagine a tactic of one retainer being assigned to a dozen levy troops who are holding the shield wall, to encourage them and axe-down any breakthrough attempts.
I have long been and still am convinced that the raison d'etre of the dane axe is for breaking up shield walls. Let's face it two shield walls facing each other is a bit too much of a stalemate situation and any commander would want a way to break his enemy's line. In Northern Europe the shield wall was pretty much de rigeur.
I think two things can be true: the historical accounts might have been recorded because it was a surprising tactic used by particularly noteworthy fighters, and it is also possible there was some combined arms tactics where Dane axes were used alongside spears to oppose calvary. ie a Dane ax isn't anti-calvary, but a Dane ax and ten spearman is better than 11 spearmen.
Recently crossed Stamford Bridge. Can confirm, it could still be help by a lone viking with a Dane Axe. Why haven't people thought to make it wider in over a thousand years? :P
It reminds me of, in Japanese history, the tale of Benkei similarly holding off men on a bridge (while Yoshitsune committed seppuku), with what I think was a naginata. And Uesugi Kenshin's bodyguards were equipped with nagamaki, if I recall correctly.
