Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Spiryt]

Can't recall any sort of soldiers ever, at least in Europe, that would form any line of warrior uniformly equipped with axes of any kind...

Which is kind of a point, one handed axe tended to be 'personal' weapons for situations outside thigh formations and pressed battle.

[Dienekes]

The Franks were supposed to normally carry axes for a time. Though they were used for throwing.

[Conners]

Hmm... historically, when were one-handed axes used? If they're no good in formations, I'm not sure when they'd see use.

With large axes, I can imagine them being used on the flanks, or shock troops using them strategically.

[Brother Oni]

Hmm... historically, when were one-handed axes used? If they're no good in formations, I'm not sure when they'd see use.

Skirmish fighting or on things like raids. I believe the vikings were fond of them and I remember reading a record of the Battle of Stamford Bridge where supposedly a single viking armed with a large axe managed to hold back the Saxon army at a bridge (until a saxon got him with a spear from under the bridge by floating down the river in a barrel).

[Spiryt]

Hmm... historically, when were one-handed axes used? If they're no good in formations, I'm not sure when they'd see use.

If no in formations, then out of formations - pretty easy.

There's also nothing indicating that they couldn't be useful in close quarters, after it's too close for spears etc. or they get lost or broken


Just that formation of guys uniformly with one handed axes as primary weapons doesn't make any sense. And things like that indeed weren't common sight at all.

They could also often be riders weapon. Particularly czekans and similar axes of Avars, Khazars and other steppe riders.

See the legend of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, as well.

[Matthew]

I would not go so far as to say they were no good in formation fighting. Bearing in mind that Polybius recommends a frontage of six feet for individual combatants using swords, there seems to be every possibility of them being used in formation. The basic issue is that in a close formation you have limited room, and that can potentially restrict the variety of use a weapon can be put to; swords are very versatile, meaning they will likely have the edge.

[Galloglaich]

Just wanted to share a couple of new fencing videos with the group, hope that is ok.

Martin Fabian of Slovakia. Love his krumph and his Kron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoCRiETBsE

And Gladiatoria from Germany, same beautiful technique they always show, now at something more like fencing speed. Superb Absetzen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwa6...&feature=share


G

[Storm Bringer]

the second was quite cool, though i can't get the first link to work form my location (germany).

[Galloglaich]

With regards to militias and professional soldiers, how different was it in the Byzantine Empire? It seems the Byzantines had a much stronger central government than most of Europe. Did the old roman system of professional standing armies survive there?

Yes, for quite a while, though they also increasingly used a lot of mercenaries. Sometimes the line was a bit blurred, such as with the Varangian Guard, who were notoriously the most loyal bodyguards of the Emperor, despite being foreigners (originally Norse, later men from the British Isles).

Who were, incidentaly, noted for using axes.

Due to the particularly vicious nature of Byzantine politics the professional military and it's various commanders rarely enjoyed trust and couldn't always count on each other even when facing common enemies. Under a strong Emperor however the Byzantine armies (and Navy) could be quite formidable.

G

[Avilan the Grey]

The Franks were supposed to normally carry axes for a time. Though they were used for throwing.

Really?

The Saxons used them, as well as vikings: Harold had troops (his huscarls, elite troops) in formation using 2-handed axes.

[Storm Bringer]

Really?

The Saxons used them, as well as vikings: Harold had troops (his huscarls, elite troops) in formation using 2-handed axes.

oh, indeed. The francisca, which was a national weapon as distinct as the roman use of the galdius.

[eulmanis12]

With vikings, one handed axes were often used in line however very few groups of men were armed with uniforemed weapons.

They were grouped by village or by ships crew, and used whatever weapon they were most comfortable with.

here is a small sample "unit" and I use the term loosley.

Sven a simple farmer who fights with spear and shield
Snorri who favors his sword "Crow Feeder"
Olaf, an accoplished raider who fights with a two handed axe and wears a mail byrnie
Ivar the village chieftain who fights with a one handed axe, a shield, and his mail byrnie
Rorik and Bjorn, the Chieftain's huscarls who both like to fight with sword and shield, both of them own leather jerkins
Stenkil who fights with a spear and shield, but carries a hand axe for backup
Halfdan who is an accomplished archer
and Harold who carries a hand axe a shield and owns a leather jerkin

Some weapons would be more common than others, but the only standard item would be the round shield that every man carries. Those who fight with two handed weapons commonly let the shield hang from a leather strap and protect their back.

[rrgg]

On the subject of axes

The Bayeux tapestry shows the two-handed axe wielders began the battle with a spear, shield, and sword like everyone else but also carried a great axe in their shield hand.

The axe doesn't show up as a uniform primary weapon for much the same reasons that a sword doesn't. Especially during the dark ages the general additude seems to have been "bring whatever you can just in case you need it." Among the vikings a man's wealth didn't seem to determine what weapons he brought so much as how many. A poor man might carry just a seax and a one-handed axe or spear while the wealthy man might be loaded down with a knife, axe, spear, sword, throwing weapons, armor, more spears, etc.

Personally, it seems to me that a 1h sword and axe could fulfill the same roles as a sidearm pretty well, but the ancients clearly saw a distinct difference between them so I don't know. Perhaps it made a better last ditch throwing weapon (one story tells of a viking warrior impaled by an enemy spear then use the small axe hidden behind his shield to get revenge on his assailant), or perhaps it performed a similar role as the short sword in a japanese samurai's arsenal.

[Storm Bringer]

a big difference is cost, in that a axe, with it's smaller metal head, required much less effort and skill form a smith to make, and ergo was much cheaper. it is, and has always been hard to make a good sword, so good swords are expensive, ergo the association of swords with the (noble) hero.

[GraaEminense]

Regarding axes:

We have viking and medieval laws from Norway and Denmark regarding the equipment of the Leidang (basically the Home Defense Force, a number of farms were supposed to equip and man a warship together).

In Norway, every man was required to carry 3 "people's arms": spear, shield, sword or axe. The ship should also carry a number of bows with arrows.

In Denmark, a similar law required spear, sword and helmet, as well as a crossbow for the captain. No axes even mentioned (or shields, strangely enough).

In neither case (and these are viking states!) is the axe considered the main weapon -in Denmark it's not even mentioned, in Norway it's an alternative to the sword as secondary weapon. Spears are obviously more important, even to vikings.

[Knaight]

In neither case (and these are viking states!) is the axe considered the main weapon -in Denmark it's not even mentioned, in Norway it's an alternative to the sword as secondary weapon. Spears are obviously more important, even to vikings.

That's not surprising. The idea of vikings being a heavily axe using force is a very recent one, not borne out by historical evidence. Look at the sagas, where spears show up all the time, consider how there are several distinct forms of viking spear heads, suggesting that the spear was a primary weapon that saw heavy evolution. Consider how vikings had some particularly effective spears - the viking hewing spear is an impressive weapon, though admittedly I'm biased on that point as it is what I personally spar with.

[GraaEminense]

Tangent time!

I have done a bit of looking (not exhaustive research, mind) at spearheads and most of them (including the big 'hewing' ones) are clearly meant for rather thin shafts and have seemingly weak necks -not likely to take the kind of abuse a 2-handed hewing spear will.

I'm currently experimenting with using one of these as a one-handed spear, but it is impractically heavy. Most of the practical hewing spears I've seen have thick necks and shafts, but I'm not sure that the archaeological record supports this.

If you don't mind, I'd like to know what kind of hewing spear you're using? If it's heavy I'd be happy for good source material (if any), if it's light I'd love to know how you keep it from breaking with repeated use.

[Knaight]

I'm currently experimenting with using one of these as a one-handed spear, but it is impractically heavy. Most of the practical hewing spears I've seen have thick necks and shafts, but I'm not sure that the archaeological record supports this.

If you don't mind, I'd like to know what kind of hewing spear you're using? If it's heavy I'd be happy for good source material (if any), if it's light I'd love to know how you keep it from breaking with repeated use.

Mine feels pretty light to me, provided that I use it in both hands. As a one handed weapon, it is cumbersome, but that has a lot more to do with torque due to gravity than weight. The spears here* are kind of close, but I'd make a few major points regarding what I've found to work, and what doesn't work.

First, I'd note that spears being tapered somewhat is really, really important. You can't just take a dowel rod, sand down the end a bit, and stick a spear head on - the balance is going to be pretty awful if you do. Secondly, I generally favor having some sort of counterweight, and these are all over the historical record. It's not all that important when using a spar in both hands, but it helps with the occasional one handed lunge. I'd suggest that tapering of some degree was commonplace as well - take a look at the diameter of the sockets of counterweights relative to the sockets of spear heads. Also, notice how both of them generally taper to some extent. If you assume that the outside of the spear up to the socket forms a near continuous line with the socket, with the part in the socket carved down to fit, that produces a wider spear.

Then there's the matter of usage - generally speaking hewing spears don't see that much harder use. The big swings that people tend to imagine them being used with have a tendency to be unhelpful and see little use, and while you can cut with them they are still mostly thrusting weapons, with cutting being more useful for opening up viable thrusting points than anything else. Even a comparatively thin spear, assuming that the wood grain is going in the right direction and you're using a decent wood, can handle this use, easily. Mine is about 7/8 an inch in diameter where it meets the socket, and 1 1/8 where it meets the socket of the counterweight, it's held up to a lot of abuse, including heavy people topping over on it while I was holding it fairly high up.

*Hurstwic is variably reliable. From what I've seen, they generally have the viking saga's translated well, and their pictures of historical artifacts are quite good, with the modern reproductions being okay. That said, when it comes to how weapons were actually used I'd look elsewhere.

[Matthew]

The Bayeux tapestry shows the two-handed axe wielders began the battle with a spear, shield, and sword like everyone else but also carried a great axe in their shield hand.

Does it? I have never noticed that before. Are we able to identify individuals armed with spear and shield later wielding an axe? I have looked pretty closely at the images over the years and have never noticed a depiction of a spear and an axe being carried at the same time.

[kardar233]

Two things:

Firstly, I'm playing a character that uses a glaive-like weapon with a head like a longsword blade. The only fighting style I know of that would be similar is naginata, but that's significantly different than what I'm looking for. Does anyone know how I'd use such a weapon?

And secondly, how useful is a H2/O2 mixture as an explosive? I have a character who makes use of water electrolysis to make that combination and am considering using it for artillery shells, but I'm not sure how effective it would be. For reference, I'm in the Iron Kingdoms steampunk setting.

[rrgg]

Does it? I have never noticed that before. Are we able to identify individuals armed with spear and shield later wielding an axe? I have looked pretty closely at the images over the years and have never noticed a depiction of a spear and an axe being carried at the same time.

I unfortunately can't post pictures right now but i believe it was the huscarl farthest left at the first shield wall. Suggesting at least one of them did it that way.

Nearby are a couple of saxons each holding a handful of spears in a similar manner.

[Matthew]

I unfortunately can't post pictures right now but i believe it was the huscarl farthest left at the first shield wall. Suggesting at least one of them did it that way.

Nearby are a couple of saxons each holding a handful of spears in a similar manner.

Ha! Oh yes, so he is. I never noticed that before. Very interesting!

[Thiel]

Two things:

Firstly, I'm playing a character that uses a glaive-like weapon with a head like a longsword blade. The only fighting style I know of that would be similar is naginata, but that's significantly different than what I'm looking for. Does anyone know how I'd use such a weapon?

Something like this?

That's a Swedish sword-staff and I imagine it's used much like any other glaive-like polearm.

And secondly, how useful is a H2/O2 mixture as an explosive? I have a character who makes use of water electrolysis to make that combination and am considering using it for artillery shells, but I'm not sure how effective it would be. For reference, I'm in the Iron Kingdoms steampunk setting.

Not very. In order to get any kind of serious bang you'd need pressurise the mixture and that means the shells will have to double as pressure vessels which would overly expensive with current technology, let alone what might be available in a steam-punked Victorian setting. And I doubt it would be any more energetic than a shell filled with gunpowder. It would also be a good deal more dangerous to store since they would have to be filled and fused at the factory.

[kardar233]

Precisely like that. I don't have a clue how to use a glaive, though. I've done quarterstaff and a bit of halberd, but nothing of that type. I might just end up using it in its shortened, sword-like form.

Cost is no object for the shells (I tax the biggest sea trade route and the second and fourth biggest land routes) especially as I'm making them for a one-off specialty 'jack. The Iron Kingdoms tech base isn't quite robust enough to cool and compress the mixture down to liquid, so I'd think you're right in that a pressurized gas explosive would be less effective than just packing it with gunpowder. If I condensed them down to liquid form I might be able to squeeze more power out of it. I might have to look into trying to invent Dewar's regenerative cooling system, as the cooling will be the problem (pressurization shouldn't be an issue in a steampunk game).

[Thiel]

Precisely like that. I don't have a clue how to use a glaive, though. I've done quarterstaff and a bit of halberd, but nothing of that type. I might just end up using it in its shortened, sword-like form.

Cost is no object for the shells (I tax the biggest sea trade route and the second and fourth biggest land routes) especially as I'm making them for a one-off specialty 'jack. The Iron Kingdoms tech base isn't quite robust enough to cool and compress the mixture down to liquid, so I'd think you're right in that a pressurized gas explosive would be less effective than just packing it with gunpowder. If I condensed them down to liquid form I might be able to squeeze more power out of it. I might have to look into trying to invent Dewar's regenerative cooling system, as the cooling will be the problem (pressurization shouldn't be an issue in a steampunk game).

I don't think you're grasping just how expensive those shells are going to be. Given the technology of the day the shells would easily cost as much as the gun that fires them..

[kardar233]

I am the third (maybe fourth) richest person in the campaign world at the moment, and this is for my personal all-in-one 'jack-o'-doom. Cost is no object.

[Thiel]

I am the third (maybe fourth) richest person in the campaign world at the moment, and this is for my personal all-in-one 'jack-o'-doom. Cost is no object.

Just to get things straight you're saying that you'd rather use shells that are less dangerous to your enemies, more dangerous to yourself and cost more than the gun that fires them.

[Dead_Jester]

Cost is no object for the shells (I tax the biggest sea trade route and the second and fourth biggest land routes) especially as I'm making them for a one-off specialty 'jack. The Iron Kingdoms tech base isn't quite robust enough to cool and compress the mixture down to liquid, so I'd think you're right in that a pressurized gas explosive would be less effective than just packing it with gunpowder. If I condensed them down to liquid form I might be able to squeeze more power out of it. I might have to look into trying to invent Dewar's regenerative cooling system, as the cooling will be the problem (pressurization shouldn't be an issue in a steampunk game).

The IK setting allows you to more or less "cheat" your way out of this by actually creating cold to liquefy your gazes. And yes, and O2/H2 bomb would probably be much less effective than a similar sized gunpowder bomb. However, a thermobaric explosive could be used instead if you want a larger damage radius than standard explosives, although finding appropriate fuel (powdered aluminium or magnesium works well) could be difficult due to the standard soil composition the setting. I'd say aluminium is your best bet, as it's a very common element (on Earth, the third after hydrogen and silicon), as long as you can get enough electricity to do it. Again, you can cheat here, but the concept of electric turbines isn't too far fetched, and coal is extremely abundant if you prefer to do it the old-fashioned way.

[Mistral]

The IK setting allows you to more or less "cheat" your way out of this by actually creating cold to liquefy your gazes. And yes, and O2/H2 bomb would probably be much less effective than a similar sized gunpowder bomb. However, a thermobaric explosive could be used instead if you want a larger damage radius than standard explosives, although finding appropriate fuel (powdered aluminium or magnesium works well) could be difficult due to the standard soil composition the setting. I'd say aluminium is your best bet, as it's a very common element (on Earth, the third after hydrogen and silicon), as long as you can get enough electricity to do it. Again, you can cheat here, but the concept of electric turbines isn't too far fetched, and coal is extremely abundant if you prefer to do it the old-fashioned way.

Aluminium may be abundant, but it's also worth noting that it's ludicrously expensive in any pre-modern setting because it bonds ridiculously quickly, making extraction a metric pain. I'm not familiar with Iron Kingdoms, but unless they have the Bayer or Hall processes, it's going to be more expensive than platinum. Even today, aluminium production is tremendously energy-intensive, for all that it's cheap in bulk. In other words, this kind of weapon is like snorting powdered platinum, something not even the richest person in the world would undertake lightly.

Cheaper possible ways for thermobarics: coal dust. The very first thermobarics used coal dust as the key ingredient, and given the historical (and modern) frequency of coal mining accidents before these principles were well-understood, it's fairly clear why. Firedamp is bad enough, but when it goes off, it can shake enough dust free that the explosion will propagate throughout the entire mine. I think this is what you were already alluding to, but it's worth outlining it.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's not surprising. The idea of vikings being a heavily axe using force is a very recent one, not borne out by historical evidence. Look at the sagas, where spears show up all the time, consider how there are several distinct forms of viking spear heads, suggesting that the spear was a primary weapon that saw heavy evolution. Consider how vikings had some particularly effective spears - the viking hewing spear is an impressive weapon, though admittedly I'm biased on that point as it is what I personally spar with.

Oh the spear is the number one weapon, but what I was saying is that both the Saxons and the Vikings HAD troops that fought with two-handed axes in formation. In both cases it also often were the houscarls, the "elite bodyguards".

Also, one thing is clear: with a two-handed axe (unlike a two-handed sword) you are really only effective if you can keep up the offense. As soon as you start having to block and parry, you are at a serious disadvantage. The main reason is that a trained two-handed axe man (for lack of a better term) uses the axe almost like a scythe, rotating and spinning it and the opponent was never sure exactly in what angle it would strike (from the side, from above, or even from below).

Here is a slow example to show what it looked like.

Here is another.