Hydaelyn Role-Players
Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Printable Version

+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions (/showthread.php?tid=11041)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - Kage - 04-17-2015

Please become my resource on two handed battle axes battle techniques etc.

I've had some viking pages /videos But the more resources the better.
Thank you

RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-17-2015

(04-17-2015, 04:02 PM)Kage Wrote: Please become my resource on two handed battle axes battle techniques etc.

I've had some viking pages /videos But the more resources the better.
Thank you

So there are a few myths about axes and their use, but the Vikings and Saxons and Nordic people in general did make wide use of Axes in combat.

The most common two handed type is often referred to simply as a 'dane axe' and the best way to show them is to look at some contemporary art. The Bayeux Tapestry depicts the battle of Hastings in 1066, where the Normans under William the Conqueror defeated the Saxons under King Harold.

Obviously this is near the end of the Viking age, and Saxons are not Vikings, but having fought them for hundreds of years, the Saxons had adopted many of their weapons and arms.

Here is a Saxon holding a Dane axe.
[Image: 4xlAh2o.jpg]

Here is another Saxon hacking a horses brains out with one.
[Image: c6Qxl4T.jpg]

They were big, they were long, and they had a relatively short, curved blade, often flaring to a point on the tip. Battleaxes tend to have much shorter and thinner blades than one would think, this was especially true in the Viking age. Armor technology was far less advanced than it would be in later years, and a fast moving blade could easily lop off a limb or head. Whereas later war axes looked more like chisels, built for pounding through plate, these were more like razors.

[Image: z03Xmif.jpg]

The blades were far thinner than you might expect, since a sharp blade moving at high speed could cut through mail, the main armor of the period.

As for their use... there isn't a terribly large amount of finesse to the weapon. It's big, it's huge, and its reach is comparable to most spears of the day. It's easy to understand why it is something of a terror weapon. You're some village militia, with a spear and wooden shield, and a group of raiders emerge from the mists, holding giant axes as long as your spears. If he hits you with it, you're dead. If he hits your shield, it will likely sink through and hit your arm. if He hits your spear, he's going to slice it in half.

As for things that aren't viking axes... double bladed axes are not historically accurate, nor are any giant meat cleaver axes. The Strength of an axe comes from the leverage it provides. The weight of the blade was generally kept as low as possible.

RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-22-2015

Two handed sword post!

So there was some confusion about two handed swords in the other thread, so I thought I would do a small post on their role historically. This is not an attempt to pressure people into using two handed swords a certain way, instead it is just an attempt to give some context.

So historically swords and other blades were kept relatively short, for a number of reasons. One, was that the quality of steel had not fully matured, and a long blade would be either too heavy, too brittle, or too soft. The other is that armor was not fully matured either, and early infantry tactics required the use of a shield.

For example the Romans likely would have had the ability to make longswords, as they were very good at making high quality steel. However the roman legionary formation had no space for people swinging giant swords.

The early middle ages also saw few two handed swords. Mail, the primary armor of the day, was still weak against piercing weapons such as spears and arrows, so the use of a shield was still required. However as the 14th and 15th centuries rolled up, metallurgy became refined enough to make full plate armor practical. Suddenly warriors had two hands free, there was no point in carrying a wooden or metal shield, when your entire body was already covered in metal. This popularized several weapons, especially various polearms. However swords were not absent from this trend as well.

The medieval arming swords evolved to be longer, with extended hilts that allowed them to be held two handed. Their cross guards and pommels were also enlarged, giving a warrior new ways to disable someone with his sword.


Some people have claimed that two handed swords have issues with reach, however they were designed in a way that made them some of the most effective close combat weapons of the period. When fighting an opponent in armor, the blades were almost always held at 'Half Sword' aka the wielder would put one hand above the crossguard. This gave more control, leverage, and options. The wielder would get close to the opponent, and disable them with blows, locks (Not unlike modern grappling holds), or precision thrusts and cuts.

[Image: BgPYKJCl.jpg]
*Donk*

[Image: qGfmSTr.jpg]
Holding your sword one handed may look cool, but it give you no control of the point, easy for someone to just knock it aside and jam their own blade into a weak spot.

[Image: p9qsv2w.jpg]

Many blades even had a special unsharpened area about the hilt, called a 'Ricasso' for such techniques.

[Image: E9SVWiQm.jpg]

These swords evolved over time to the flashy Flamberges and Zweihanders used by mercenary groups, however as full plate armor became less and less popular, the swords lost their use. Combat because less about one on one fighting, and more about coordinate groups. The swords stayed alive because of their use fullness in lopping off pike heads, and in creating havoc inside a formation once they hacked their way inside. The Landsknecht in particular were famous for using this weapon, and for looking completely baller.

[Image: 8BLX7gfl.jpg]

[Image: FY0egQMl.jpg]

Here is a group of them trying to force their way into a pike formation.

[Image: qrt8ZHIl.jpg]


So! Recap.

Two handed swords were close combat weapons, not the giant swinging blades you see in videogames. There were already plenty of longer weapons in the arsenal, spears, pikes, poleaxes, etc. The two handed swords were for getting in close and dirty, and were held at the half sword for leverage and control.

They evolved into even larger swords, the Zweihanders, who were used in giant cuts and sweeps, but only because they were no longer used against armored knights, but instead lightly armored infantry formations, where they might slash though pikes and men both.

RE: Weapons, Armor, Tactics and History Questions - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-22-2015

As an addendum, some of you might be interested in these. Grappling and wrestling was a big part of armored combat, as it was often hard to shove a blade into the weak spots of a moving target. Here are a pair of contemporary manuscripts showing some moves. So, don't be afraid to incorporate grappling moves into two handed sword use, or sword use in general. They really were used generally as close in brawling weapons.

[Image: j61fvVk.png]
Arrrmmmm barrrr.

[Image: HrngyIv.png]
Some 15th century jackie chan shit.


Hopefully this also helps all the monks out there, there is historical precedence for people knowing how to take down armed and armored opponents with just their hands, and it wasn't punching through plate mail.