Was the Two-Handed VIKING AXE an Anti-Cavalry weapon?

[@scholagladiatoria]

▼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/

[@arnijulian6241]

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.

[@Intranetusa]

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).

[@arnijulian6241]

​@@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.

[@arnijulian6241]

​@@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?

[@Intranetusa]

@@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.

[@uncleheavy6819]

The Dane axe wasn't just anti cavalry, it was anti everything.

[@jamesdeek7039]

Exactly. Not specialized against horses but does the job

[@Juel92]

It's the anti-life equation.

[@shinjiikari1021]

Like the 88 flugabwehrkanone

[@BalbazaktheGreat]

Exactly!

[@mata6669]

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.

[@sitrilko]

"... we'll come back to that in a minute!" must be Matt's most signature line

[@andyleighton6969]

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.

[@zednotzee7]

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.

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

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.

[@matthewzito6130]

Alternately, an individual horseman who managed to break through a shield wall might find himself surrounded by housecarls.

[@matthewzito6130]

@@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.

[@zednotzee7]

@@matthewzito6130 Indeed, that is very possible as well. Unfortunately we can only speculate at the moment.

[@coldwarrior78]

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.

[@seymourskinner2533]

You trained in anti cavalry tactics? I wouldn’t have expected that!

[@texasbeast239]

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.

[@coldwarrior78]

​@@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.

[@seymourskinner2533]

@@coldwarrior78 thanks. I thought maybe they did cavalry training as kind of a “ how we got where we are” sort of thing.

[@cheynewillingham2107]

To paraphrase an old saying, "When all you have is a Dane Axe, everything looks like a shield wall."😄

[@furnacebay5305]

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.

[@WynnofThule]

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.

[@jeandutoit9221]

"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse..." "hm..."

[@SirLionel13]

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.

[@corymoon2439]

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.

[@NishidateKitsune]

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).

[@Oldtanktapper]

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.

[@steffenb.jrgensen2014]

A true joy to see you discuss and analyze - bravo!

[@joemurphy1189]

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.

[@Isaac_howell]

I noticed this too, maybe a good choice for a lefty

[@annatar2186]

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

[@steveholmes11]

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).

[@steveholmes11]

That got even longer than I expected. It reflects my interest in the subject. Apologies to any who trawled through it.

[@carlcramer9269]

If a spearman takes out a cavalryman, that is business as usual. Not worth of notice. But an axe?! That is news, that is worth noting!

[@barrytrevers8367]

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'.

[@darrinrebagliati5365]

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.

[@EmilReiko]

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

[@somerando1073]

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.

[@johnfisk811]

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.

[@WhatIfBrigade]

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.

[@matthewzito6130]

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.

[@-RONNIE]

Thanks for the video ⚔️

[@yishayarmoni7135]

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.

[@ArkadiBolschek]

Everything is an anti-cavalry weapon if you can jump high enough

[@herbertgearing1702]

I know the Byzantines were impressed by the Dane axe. It must have been a very effective weapon indeed for a viking to forsake his shield in order to use it. Axe and shield is an effective way to fight, and they had spears available, so the Dane axe must have offered some very important advantage to be chosen by elite viking units over these options. It's just conjecture on my part but the kinetic energy seems to be the biggest difference between the Dane axe and the above options, so perhaps armored opponents and other tough targets like horses which are difficult to take down. If your Dane axe doesn't penetrate the armor you may still do your opponent damage. Modern body armor can stop a 12ga slug from entering your body, but it will still knock you down, cave in some ribs, and make breathing an ordeal.

[@colemanblack]

As on a modern battlefield, it makes sense to have multiple weapon systems to take down a given problem. Slowed up by Spearmen, I can totally buy calvarymen getting smoked by large Axmen.

[@Afro408]

Good points raised here and and the one about them being wielded by bodyguards is a very valid one. I think that, as the 'Viking' warriors were also independent and used what they were comfortable with, would have used their weapon of choice. Can't you see a hulking great Dane wielding one of these and it not looking ridiculous in his hands. After all, it's just a normal type axe with a long haft.

[@TheNEOverse]

Vikings generally all liked to have spears and shields, and fought in a disciplined and cohesive manner. They weren't just wild berserker raiders that threw themselves without care.

[@sitrilko]

I know this kind of anecdote has limited use - but using a smaller number of 2h axemen behind a proper spear&shield wall is what I found to work increadibly well vs. cavalry in Bannerlord. The scenario how it often works out is that should cavalry ever be halted and entangled in melee for any amount of time - that is exactly when 2h weapons come to shine and make a very, very bad day for the cavalrymen. Conversely, if you use 2h-axemen only then they actually fare not as hot vs. cavalry. They really need that shield or spear wall to help reduce the cavalry's mobility.

[@garywheeley5108]

Matt you need to do a video on the Scottish Lochaber ? Axe wasn't that specifically aimed at cavalry?

[@jackrice2770]

The pole arm is used to 'break' the initial assault by the cavalry, when they're charging in formation. Once the action becomes more melee, a pole arm might not be as convenient against a single horse/rider not at a gallop, but whirling about and changing direction quickly. Thus a shorter and more easily maneuvered weapon would be handy, at the same time an axe is big enough to wound/kill a large animal that's lashing out with all four hooves, with iron shoes, so you don't want that to connect with you. Most combat troops appreciate an adaptable weapon, not one specialized for a single tactical situation, so a combination of spearmen/axemen against cavalry is ideal. Archers, and lots of 'em, would be best, of course, but once you're fighting hand-to-hand, the archers aren't of much use. No, the Dane axe wasn't designed as an anti-cavalry weapon, but it turns out to be useful for that purpose anyway. Who'da thunk?

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

In the East, the Vikings (Rus) were fighting a lot more against cavalry than in the West, like the Khazars, Petchenegs, Koumans, Kipchaks, Hungarians who fought almost exclusively on horseback. They also copied their type of small "nomad" axe: you can find this oriental type of battle-axe in Russia interestingly with the Scandinavian representation of Sigurdh slaying the dragon gilded on it.

[@eddiemccabe4585]

The Irish held the Normans at bay for a couple hundred years,they tried everything and what worked best for 300 years heavy infantry with axes,later big swords?

[@morriganmhor5078]

I don´t know if it is a historical reality. Still, I read a piece about the battle of Northallerton (1138) where the Scottish Norman cavalry crushed through the English Norman heavy infantry lines only to slow and be chopped to pieces (mostly) by the Anglo-Saxon levies with Dane axes.

[@koosh138]

It didn't even work out for the huscarls later when they were hired as varangians and the Normans beat them again.

[@tommeakin1732]

I'm taken aback by your seeming confusion on why Germanics overwhelmingly fought on foot. To begin with, it's pretty clear to me from just reading earlier works that we're talking about folk who took pride in fighting well, shield-to-shield, man-to-man. This was a very long held way of doing things for folk who cared about their forefathers, and it's hardly like it was a bad way of doing things, even if it does have it's weaknesses, like anything. You'll know as well as any that, tactically, an all foot army (or here in English) wielding a great many shields and spears is a staggeringly hard nut to crack for pretty much anything. Another thing often overlooked about footmen is how much more constant pressure can be when compared to horsemen. Horsemen can have great shock, but have to stay moving, so cannot hold pressure. The biggest weakness of mostly footmen comes from lack of flexibility, which can be, at least strategically, be made up for by having horses bring your men to the field where they then fight on foot (say like later English knights). Clearly riders have other big strengths, liking hounding those that flee, and I don't want to ignore that - I guess I'm kind of saying all this as it is, I think, a "common misconception" that horseman are just better than footmen, or something like that; when ironically, footmen are the great breaker of horsemen. I would go as far as saying that, as far as counters go, shield bearing footmen are the hardest to counter.

[@rvail136]

Anglo-Saxons used horses for transport, not war. They rode to the battlefield amd would form up on foot for battle. Norse did much the same thing. Normans are the assimilated descendants of Norse invaders who adapted to continental fighting which nobles fought on horseback with supporting foot. Anglo-Saxon housecarls did use a long handled axe, but they also had a shield and wielded their axe in a very different way. Its difficult to describe., but essentially used it one handed with the long halft help under their arm and against their body, swinging it in an almost figure 8 way.

[@OBXDewey]

Maybe the spear and dane ax were used in a team. The spearmen stopped the calvary charge wounding men and horses then the ax men followed up to finish them off. The ol' one-two blow. Also, the calvary could have used them in CQC where spears were impractical. ???

[@Outside85]

Think the Dane axe was developed to deal with shields and chainmail mainly, because the amount of force you can get out of a big axe like that would make it easier to batter your way through those kinds of defences rather than having to wail repeatedly on them with smaller axes, swords or spears. But it just happens to be a very utilitarian weapon that just also happens to be effective against mounted opponents, either because you can hit/reach the rider quite easily or you can just hit the horse with a decent chance of bringing it down with its rider... that last one I am not sure spears are that good at unless the horse is actually charging at you. Another point is, I don't think the Dane-axes would normally be fielded like a Roman regiment where everyone had the same weapons, they'd have a bunch of dudes with shields, spears and whatever making up the bulk, and then they would have some specialists throughout the formation with the big axes to help knock holes in the opponents lines or come in and jump the horsemen after the initial charge has been absorbed. The exception to this is ofc the Huscarls and Varangian Guard where the Dane-axes (and the like) were a basic part of their armament... but I think its fair to say this is where the axes are also a status symbol.

[@OhBoy235]

it makes a lot of sense to mix spear or pike formations with more durable weapons like axes halberds or two handed swords, the spears and pikes will eventually break turning the soldiers using them into very defensive shield carriers with a short sword in those situations you need someone who can threaten anyone who attacks the formation and takes them down quickly.

[@Blaisem]

Other comments already raised good points for and against, but I also wonder if the argumentation should not also be expanded to beyond practical battlefield reasons. If you're a skilled warrior, on the level of a knight or better, then there should be social implications that come to the fore as well. Having a fearsome 2H axe makes a powerful impression on the peasantry; eschewing the armaments of the rank and file will make you stand out. And you'll have the skill (and armor) to dominate soldiers with more practical weapons who aren't as well trained or protected. There are reasonable odds you wouldn't be punished for taking up a 2H axe when a better weapon may serve. Certainly, you won't be expected to bear the brunt of a cavalry charge in formation often. Such moments could be spread by years or decades. The lord may even encourage his guard to set itself apart, because it reflects well on him personally; his special guard will be more memorable. Once it's part of the culture, everyone kind of expects it, and then you end up with a 2H axe on a battlefield and may in fact encounter a horse and become the object of an artistic rendition of an elite soldier felling a horse (at the artist's discretion, or the lord's whim to showcase his guard in victory, or the 2H wielder themselves trying to enshrine their feat). It wouldn't be the first time that prevailing military standards (or really any societal standard) existed despite not being the most practical approach.

[@dredlord47]

Wasn't the Bardiche also often used against cavalry quite frequently?

[@YossarianVanDriver]

Actually, I'm curious; a lot of medieval Welsh sources seem to describe mounted combat, even early ones. Was cavalry genuinely more common in their culture, or was this more likely retroactively written in in the post-Norman period?

[@TheNEOverse]

The Brythonic Celts did like cavalry much more than the Northern Germanic peoples that came after. Cavalry was popular in general with the Celts. And because they were once part of the Roman Empire, its not unlikely that some good horses did find their way in the hands of Welsh nobles and retainers.

[@raphlvlogs271]

The Russian Bardiche will be a slightly better Anti-Cavalry weapon than the dane axe since it can thrust well the limited length is still a major down side

[@Simon-Wolf]

I have always thought that the 'Dane Axe' was developed to breach shield walls by elite troops, and due to that association, it became associated also with elite bodyguard units, ie, the Housecarls.

[@TzunSu]

Huscarls weren't "elite bodyguards", they were the entirety of the household warriors of someone. The word means "house man"

[@Simon-Wolf]

, well, the dictionary gives "(before the Norman Conquest) a member of the bodyguard of a Danish or English king or noble", but I am willing for it to be corrected....

[@TzunSu]

@@Simon-Wolf That's a bad definition then, huscarls have been a thing since pre-Viking era. Wikipedia has a better definition: "The institution originated amongst the Norsemen of Scandinavia, and was brought to Anglo-Saxon England by the Danish conquest in the 11th century. They were well-trained, and paid as full-time soldiers.". Housecarls were the "standing army" of the Norsemen, the only salaried soldiers available. There were of course "more elite" and "less elite" housecarls, but on the whole, they were just salaried warriors, they made up the hirð. Originally it just meant a man-servant who was a free man, when most of the other "employees" would have been thralls, or slaves in English.

[@Simon-Wolf]

@@TzunSu it definitely seems to be one of those terms that respected bodies disagree about. Britannica has "Housecarl, member of the personal or household troops or bodyguard of Scandinavian kings and chieftains in the Viking and medieval periods. The housecarls achieved a celebrated place in European history as the Danish occupation force in England under Canute the Great in 1015-35." So, personal or household troops for them, not just 'ordinary' troops.

[@TzunSu]

@@Simon-Wolf That *was* the ordinary troops, there were no standing armies at the time. Everyone who served under arms did so in someone's hird.

[@rogerlafrance6355]

For conscripts, everybody knew how to use an axe.. Also, that was about the only hook weapon at the time? Get that hook on man, beast or even spearshaft at speed and things will happen. Farmers of the time worked around large beasts all the time with just a poll and snare.

[@rumblechad]

To offer some helpful (hopefully) context, the Germanic peoples never seem to have been great users of cavalry outside of skirmishes and raiding. It could be a lack of good horses, a cultural preference for fighting on foot, or a difference in geography lending itself to mass cavalry use. Swamps, forests, and mountains make cavalry campaigning rough and germanic territories weren't known for being forgiving lands. The mainland celts were famous for their use of horses, though interestingly we don't see that represented a lot in art or media. The Normans, we have to understand, were French. They had a Scandinavian-descended ruling class but that's exactly what it was, a minority elite. The bulk of Norman population was more or less French, not "viking." It's more likely that the long ax wouldn't have been designed specifically for cavalry, but when a Norman cavalryman gets stuck in your line and all you have is a Dane axe, of course you're going to whack him with it.

[@shanesmith2853]

I suppose if you have calvary coming at you and you happen to have a Dane axe in your hands, it's an anti-calvary weapon.

[@wacojones8062]

One, can it split a shield with one stroke, two, can it hook the top of shield and pull an already wounded fighter down to start breaking the shield wall.

[@troelsfischerthomsen1892]

I would think a gloures last stand would be a guarantied ticked to Valhalla, not a bad deal.

[@anglonorse2943]

Sorry Matt but even the Norman horses were not overly large, archaeological finds of horse harness show bits suited to horses of 13 hands or less. Also, look at the depictions on the Bayeux tapestry, why are the rider's legs so far down the horse's flanks and close to the ground?

[@farkasmactavish]

that's still way bloody bigger than a pony

[@anglonorse2943]

@@farkasmactavish Nope, a pony is officially described as a horse below 14.2 hands in height

[@thhseeking]

I remember an episode of "Time Team" that made that point when Phil had to stand against a re-enactor on a "pony". It was mentioned about the archaeological finds.

[@jankruger7551]

Something intresseting about the big twphanders you mentioned, in germany they are sometimes known as "gassenhauer" lit. transl. alley-puncher which sugests that the idea behind them being the use by shock troops and their use against cavalry is rather coincidental

[@GaryChurch-hi8kb]

Well said...95 percent of all fighting in history not happening on the asian steppe was done with spears (or the lance from horseback). The Romans were the only exception. Spears have always been the most central feature of combat before gunpowder. Darts, javelins, arrows, and bolts made shields the companion piece. Helmets were likely common because of the humble sling constantly showering everything on the field with rocks. Daggers were the backup weapon. All other weapons were special tools. Except on the steppe.

[@mikkel2241]

if your kingdom is comprised of a alot of smaller island, you are going to use a boat alot. mixed with how horses like everything isolated on islands have a tendens to get smaller, not always but it does happen quit offen. then your not going to have your army developing to ride horses. france on the other hand, kinda had to have horses in their army's becouse they had alot of just pure land and river to protect. for the axed used against cavalry, does actually fit really well with shield walls, becouse as a cavalry you wanna find the weak spot and pounce. but with trained shield walls you can create what looks like weak spot and then pounce with your axes when they go for it. (this tactic is actually used mostly against elephants and cariots). Also one could argue that almost all nothen areas of europa has a love/connection for axes becouse they all knew how to use it for foresting, making it easier to take those who are really good at it and make them axe/bodyguard soldiers. like how every english man knew how to use a bow during the 100 years war (had to shoot like once a week), but not all english men where archers. then whe have the spear in it self, the spear is mostly used by the lowest paid soldier/peasant becouse its cheap as f compared to other weapons, and for most spear infantry your job was holding the line not doing the actually winning. so most really trained soldiers would use the spear as a first impact weapon becouse of range, if they even used it, and then use the weapons they are most trained in for close courters. like how professionel higly trained units today, gets to kinda put their own gear together based on their own preferences. we still see most infantry having a similier kit/gear, becouse they are not skilled enough to get that freedom compared to special forces, not saying they are worse then a civilian, there are just better soldiers than commen infantry.

[@-Bile-]

Gyatt damn thats a pretty axe!

[@adamroodog1718]

so what pulled the celts chariots if the romans were the ones to bring horses to britian?

[@kahn04]

Anything can be used against cavalry if you are willing to put yourself in harm’s way in the hopes that you get that perfect moment that everyone talks about. To my mind it’s a showman’s anti-calvary weapon above all else

[@andrewbatterham8019]

Could it not also have been a secondary weapon depending on circumstance, like hanging over the back until spear/ shield disposed of. Also having that sized axe would be beneficial for fighting cavalry that have either used/disposed of the spears and are hand to hand fighting and or have slowed to fight in the line. Just the reach alone would outreach a sword drawn horseman.

[@Somewhat-Evil]

IMO the Dane axe was designed to deal with armored enemies. It was made to deliver power strikes to splinter shields and tear through mail.

[@Thulgore]

I consider it a perfect weapon for all occasions, not the best at any single occasion but amazing in all of them. I don't view it as a specialized weapon at all. It's good everywhere.

[@blacktar467899]

I thought Dane Axes were used to attack over, and sometimes chop through, shield walls.

[@Suillibhain]

I think the great axe was a weapon of terror. It waa used against everything, by specialized troops as assault troops to break holes in the enemy lines.

[@TorianTammas]

When you are attacked by a formation of cavalry that is armed with spear or lances then your only defense is sticking together and having a shield for moral support. If your formation breaks you are mowed down, if your formation holds you have a chance of survival. Anything but a spear or a firearm against cavalry is a death wish.

[@markwalker4485]

I agrée that the body guard or elite status would be the best answer as you suggest. The Varangian guard where almost always armed with great axes.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Exactly - I meant to mention the Varangians and forgot.

[@rararnanan7244]

The fact that an instrument is used for a purpose does not mean it was intended for the purpose. Agricultural implements were often used in wars inspite of absolutely not intended for that use.

[@DETHMOKIL]

I suppose i'd use that extra reach if I had it. Plus if my mates had spears, then i'd be ok with them standing out in front of me lol

[@doomslayer7719]

I will at least offer the following: Cavalry, and specifically, Horses, don't go well in Longships. For any real length of time, let alone for potentially weeks to months at sea.

[@rumblechad]

The original anti-materiel weapon

[@mohamed-fb9vt]

it depends on the tactic the anglo Saxon where positioned on high ground no need for spearman

[@rtbinc2273]

You also have to think of anti-material uses of axes. You can use an axe to chop down a wooden bridge or hole someones boat to prevent it from being of use to an enemy.

[@anarionelendili8961]

The Dane Axe is not great for that, since it has a very narrow blade. Better to use an actual woodchopping axe for it.

[@stevewebster5729]

To me, the Dane axe seems better suited to the anti- formed defence role, I.e. to be used to break a 'shield wall' type formation

[@BrunoSchmidt-e6h]

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.

[@andyleighton6969]

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.

[@EvilTwinn]

@@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.

[@ItsASuckyName]

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.

[@JesseP.Watson]

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.

[@Weberkooks]

or just use a spear

[@jeice13]

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

[@bluewizzard8843]

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.

[@MarkMark-kj9xp]

Two handed axes were also used in conjunction with Heater shields in later periods, the shield would be around the shoulder and rear hand.

[@Dolritto]

​​​@@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.

[@PalleRasmussen]

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.

[@danielbukovsky9517]

thanks

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@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.

[@yomauser]

@@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.

[@tommeakin1732]

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

[@Weberkooks]

@@yomauserSource? lmfao. the sbit people will claim w/o providing a source

[@lasselen9448]

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?

[@carlcramer9269]

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.

[@rat_thrower5604]

Totally agree. This requires skill, training and discipline - which only professional soldiers have.

[@Bob_Lennart]

If a Dane axe is what you have and you are attacked by cavalry, you use a Dane axe against cavalry. That does not mean it is an anti-cavalry weapon.

[@derigel7662]

So if all i have is a pike and use that pike against calvary......its not anti cav? 🤔 your crap argument not mine.

[@TheWhiteDragon3]

​@@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.

[@derigel7662]

@@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.

[@Intranetusa]

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).

[@stayhungry1503]

i think the question being asked is if it was particularly effective against cavalry or not.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

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."

[@Intranetusa]

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).

[@Subutai_Khan]

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.

[@hjorturerlend]

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.

[@Subutai_Khan]

@@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.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

@@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.

[@kaoskronostyche9939]

Big axes and big Berserkers. Fun times. Thanks, Matt.

[@TheWhiteDragon3]

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.

[@yugytomm]

Sound similar to Muscovite Streltsy who were equipped with muskets and huge axes. Although the axe was also used as a support for the firearm.

[@akd8525]

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?

[@AAA-p3i5v]

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.

[@Isaac_howell]

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

[@chrisball3778]

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...

[@paulmer87]

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.

[@chrisball3778]

@@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.

[@TheNEOverse]

@@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.

[@capnstewy55]

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.

[@mnk9073]

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]

you could add that having a tapastry with the weakest looking peasant army all carrying spears, wont make your victory all that glorius.

[@mnk9073]

@@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...

[@RockModeNick]

​@@mnk9073what's the saying, about tactics vs logistics and winning wars...

[@mikkel2241]

@@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.

[@stayhungry1503]

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.

[@EmilReiko]

The shieldwall as an actual formation might not really have been a thing

[@arielquelme]

Quite false.. Shield wall in some degree are prevalent from before high middle age eras, in many civilization

[@EmilReiko]

@@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'm not an expert. but I feel like it would bring down anything when you hit with the cutty side of it.

[@Subutai_Khan]

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.

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

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.

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

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.

[@hoegild1]

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!

[@mattydare]

@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.

[@titanscerw]

So Daneaxe-Whack-a-dude?

[@superrobotmonkeyhyperteamf3194]

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.

[@MisterKisk]

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).

[@superrobotmonkeyhyperteamf3194]

@@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 !

[@I_Willenbrock_I]

Before watching: I dare say it was an "against everything weapon".

[@bobrobinson1576]

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.

[@Mikey__R]

10:00 That Zhanmadao, or horse cutting sword, looks far more Japanese than Chinese? EDIT: a quick Google has shown a few that look at least superficially like Odachi. I thought the two sword making traditions were far more distinct than they actually were in reality!

[@andrewprahst2529]

Have you ever heard of that chinese sword that is explicitly a chinese take on the katana? I remember the translated name was something like "dwarf sword" reflecting how they viewed the Japanese

[@gadyariv2456]

Isn't the Dane ax a Danish weapon? Why are we talking about the anglo Saxons who appropriated the wepon, and not the Danes who presumably developed them?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Because we have several sources for Anglo-Danish houscarls using them, and almost no sources for Dane using them. Remember that England had a few decades of Danish kingship, and Harold Godwinson was himself half Danish. The English housecarls were just a continuation of the Danish huskarls.

[@Gargoiling]

I subscribe to this channel because Matt discusses things I don't already know the answer to.

[@knate44]

A dane axe could take down a horse. It doesn't mean it was created to takedown a horse. I suspect its similar with two-handed Dao, it was a sword capable of unhorsing a man, not one made specifically to fight cavalry.

[@HanzGibbler]

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.

[@spamhonx56]

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.

[@J_n..]

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.

[@J_n..]

Maybe the question was asked the wrong way. If you equip your best men with Daneaxe and sent them to fight horsemann because the have the mindset to hold ground against cavalry they use their axes