Germanic Combat Techniques

[Paullus Scipio]

I'm a little surprised that it should be difficult to differentiate between axes-as-tools, and axes-as-weapons.

Normally, of course, only the heads survive.

In general these can be distinguished as follows:-

1. Felling axes are used to cut trees etc and are characterised by broad, heavy heads ( they need weight to bit into trees, and a broad blade to ensure a large cut)

2. Battle axes need to be lighter for agility in battle. They sometimes have an elongated blade ( especially those made before swords came into general use) for flesh cutting, but if so, frequently have sections cut away for lightness ( e.g. Egyptian 'epsilon' axes, or Viking battle axes, where the cutting edge is retained but much of the blade is 'cut away') behind the edge, again to give a light blade. Other types of battle axe have very narrow heads (culminating in pick-like examples), or spikes on the back, for armour piercing.

Of course there is a 'grey area' perhaps, in between, but generally the weight alone suffices to distinguish.... felling axes are generally 2.5 lbs at lightest to 3.5 or even 4 lbs(1.2-1.6 or even 1.8 kg)

Battle axes are generally lighter at 1.5 -2.5 lbs, rarely more(0.68-1.2 kg)

If weight is inconclusive then thickness of blade will be - felling axes are wedge shaped and thicken quickly to a 'fat' blade,often wider than the haft ( so as not to snap in the tree-trunk), whereas battle axes tend to have a uniformly thin blade, more like a meat cleaver ( 2-5mm thick).

Shape too will be a strong indicator - a battleaxe blade often has 'horns'/points at the ends of the blade ( so that it can be secondarily used to thrust and 'hook' ).

I for one would be interested to see the details of the Vimose axe heads.......

[PMBardunias]

I do not think that it is save to deduce from those images that clubmen and stone throwers were a regular feature of Germanic warfare ...And anybody familiar with weapons and tactics might agree with me that a guy swinging a stick is perfectly capable of driving off rebellious civilians but that neither stone throwers or clubmen can inflict serious harm on a formation of armoured infantrymen.

The humble hand-tossed stone should not be sold short. Men throwing stones was a stock feature of hoplite warfare. This occurred not only with light troops throwing stones, but the heavy hoplites themselves resort to this on a number of occaisions.

As for the utility of a club in combat, a couple of ancient authors describe a single combat in which an Athenian armed with only a club beat the crap out of a fully armed macedonian (Diodorus 17.100). In another reference I cannot recall off the top of my head, Thracians were said to knock the heads off of spears with their clubs. That was something too-malleable Gallic swords could not do- at least not more than once.

[M. Demetrius]

In one of the fortified camp attacks against Caesar in De Bello Gallico, he mentions his men throwing rocks from the camp into the ranks of attacking troops. A rock the size of a fist can do considerable harm to a face or neck (don't try this at home).

[Adam Oswalt]

Paul, here is the bibliographic reference for the article I mentioned above:

Christensen, Arne Emil. “The Roman Iron Age Tools From Vimose, Denmark.” Acta Archaeologica. 76 (2005) pp. 59-86

I think that, perhaps, my wording was a little off in the above post; the comment about the inherent problems in identification was specifically referencing the Vimose site. I agree that one would be able to differentiate between weapon and tool based on relative size and shape. However, I think that the context of the Vimose finds would make it tempting to identify a tool as a weapon, or at least raise the question of whether the axes found would be used as weapons or tools. Christensen comes to the (correct, to me) conclusion that the axes found at Vimose were tools but does point out that, using certain criteria (specifically, using Soren Vadstrup's suggestion that the way the handle hole is forged can determine the axe's use as a weapon or tool) all but one of the axes found at Vimose would be identified as weapons. Again, I think that Christensen is right in classifying the axes as tools; just looking at the axes, I tend to see felling/hewing axes.

Hope this all makes sense. If you have any trouble with the article, let me know, and I'll see if I can help.

Adam

[Harjaz]

I have tried swinging felling axes with one hand and a shield in the other, and I've found that they're very heavy and clumsy and wouldn't work well in most combat situations. However, there is another kind of axe that was in use during this time. I mentioned 'woodworking' axe, as axes at this time were not only used for felling trees, but also for woodwork (scraping, shaping, etc.), more like a modern carpenter's axe. The axes the Vikings used in battle were mostly designed for woodwork (not perticularly for felling trees). I've forged an axe similar to one of these Viking axes, and I'm surprised at how agile it is, yet it's perfect for woodworking. We know that the Romans used such axes for woodworking perpouses, and there is a find from Noricum of a Roman axe that was made by Germanic craftsmen. It's possible that it could be based on native Germanic wood working axes.

Here is an example of a Roman woodworking axe

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rogerulrich/to...rking.html

I also found a 'Germanic axe' on a website that seems to be similar to other Roman axe finds that were made in border regions (possibly by Germanic smiths). Any idea if it's accurate?

http://www.thorhammer.org/en/Germanic_ax...329d1232e4

Also, if these tools were used in battle, they probably wern't burried with their owners as they wern't 'prestigious weapons', like swords and spears. Later in the migration period they can be found in graves, but at this time they were definately tools. Also, we havn't found any clubs, because they all would have rotted away (even if the warrior was burried with one in the first place!).