One of my players (we're just starting up a new game) wanted to have a battleaxe. Is this the same as a poleaxe, or is the battleaxe a 'made up' weapon that didn't really exist? (I just don't have the knowledge to answer it...)
I was thinking that it was simply a hand axe. Used in the two-handed mode it looks pretty mean, especially against hard armours.
What's he mean by battle axe?
Does he mean a double edged hand axe? A Light Two handed axe (useable one-handed, but at a penalty)? A double edged two-handed axe?
There are a lot of styles of "battle axe".
It's not so much a made up term as a unspecific term. All it really means is a axe specifically made for combat.
From what he's saying, I think he's talking about a large axe that has to be used two handed, and which has two large blades.
I've never heard of such a thing of any size or description like what you see in frazetta paintings. I'd say "no." He has to have a normal axe, unless he wants ungodly TNs. Poleaxe would be the closest thing, though.
Jake
If the boy just wants a honkin big Axe, just give him a bearded axe... biggest type ever feilded in RL. What the TN's would be on that I haven't a clue though...
Thanks everyone, that's really useful.
well....
-There is what is called a "Danish war axe" with a 56" overall length supposedly circa. 1000 on display in the british museum in london.
And there are examples of war axe - which are just the same as warhammers with an axe head instead of a hammer head
or just use the hand axe or pole axe listed in the book - a master class weapon is only x10 so that would be a mere 20 or 40 silver and you get to slighlty modify the ATN and DTN in your favor.
Why is the hand axe harder to hit with (higher ATN)than the warhammer, or a mace? unless I felt the business end I can't imagine telling the difference between them swinging them around in the dark.
Battle Axe seems to be a term we have conjured up since our time playing fantasy games frome what I can tell.
Back then they were described by thier function, or by their nationality if they were of foreign origin.
The double headed battle axe, or Bipenis axe was never fielded in Europe if I am not mistaken, another bit for the fantasy gamer.
What I consider to be decent historical reproductions can be found here:
http://www.albionarmorers.com/axes.htm
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item024.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item104.html
http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item006.html
http://www.lutel.cz/index2e.htm Select Catalogue and then Axes & Halbards...
http://www.bytheswordinc.com/acatalog/Battle_Axes.html ...Yeah, I know...
http://www.medievalrepro.com/Daggers.html bottom of the page
This is by far an incomplete list, and be wary of the ones that don't make sense as practical. For example; why would a warrior weigh down his weapon with a second axe head when he could put a much more practical spike (later period stuff) on the other end for a wider variety of attacks and maneouvers? A second blade would just create unneccessary mass that had to be swung around. The viking weapons I have seen have only one blade, and they were supposed to be the great heroes of the sagas.
I'm beginning to think that the double-bladed axe is derivative of tolkienesque dwarves, who are notably stronger, and so can use heavier weapons than "weak" humans.
But then I think... Why would they want to? Why waste the strength to get a weapon moving, or change direction, when you can put it to good use with a lighter axe, and put more of that strength into splitting skulls?
lighter is better, in most cases, so long as it does not weaken the strength of the weapon itself... So, yay for single-bitted axes!
Quote from: Wolfen
But then I think... Why would they want to? Why waste the strength to get a weapon moving, or change direction, when you can put it to good use with a lighter axe, and put more of that strength into splitting skulls?
I can think of one good reason, and that pertains to inertia. Yes, it takes a certain amount of strength to get a weapon up to speed, but once you do it is fairly easy to keep it moving, and even easier if there is a sizaable weight attached to the end of it. For a later period axe (one designed with armor cracking in mind) a substantially heavier head might be in order.
The speed plus mass of the spinning weapon connecting with someone's head will actually do a good deal of the work for you.
Need to change direction? Keep the weapon spinning. Similar principles can also be appended to many one-handed sword and mace styles.
Quote from: AshtonQuote from: Wolfen
But then I think... Why would they want to? Why waste the strength to get a weapon moving, or change direction, when you can put it to good use with a lighter axe, and put more of that strength into splitting skulls?
I can think of one good reason, and that pertains to inertia. Yes, it takes a certain amount of strength to get a weapon up to speed, but once you do it is fairly easy to keep it moving, and even easier if there is a sizaable weight attached to the end of it. For a later period axe (one designed with armor cracking in mind) a substantially heavier head might be in order.
The speed plus mass of the spinning weapon connecting with someone's head will actually do a good deal of the work for you.
Need to change direction? Keep the weapon spinning. Similar principles can also be appended to many one-handed sword and mace styles.
I am not doing mass weapons as of yet, but, I think that there is a reason we don't see any historical examples of battle-field axes with double heads in Europe. An axe with one head weighs in at about 2-4 lbs (0.90-1.8kg). Add an additional 1lb (0.45kg) or so for the second head and you have that extra weight you have to spend energy swinging. The thing is, you may do some real splash stuff the first couple of minutes, but then your're spent. What are you going to do for the other ten to fifteen minutes of fighting? Also, defensively the axe is a pig any ways, imagine what it would be like with that extra mass and inertia. Relying on your shield when the bad guy gets smart and hits you on your dominant side just don't cut the mustard.
Also, in regards to keeping an axe moving, its great, until you hit something, then you have to start all over again. So hit a guy, or his shield, or he deflects your blow and you have to start from scratch. The heavy weapons were reserved for very specific things, and fighting wasn't usually one of them. One of the key ideas to fighting with these weapons involves the ability to get the weapon moving, and soon.
also note, that the majority of large ornate double headed axes were usually for executioners
they needed only enough downward pressure to severe a head..
Quote from: prophet118also note, that the majority of large ornate double headed axes were usually for executioners
they needed only enough downward pressure to severe a head..
Yeah, these seem to be more tools than weapons. Same with lumberjack axes. These need to be balanced for side to side choping, too (and a second blade makes sense for a guy who's going to have a dull blade after only so many trees).
Mike
QuoteI am not doing mass weapons as of yet, but, I think that there is a reason we don't see any historical examples of battle-field axes with double heads in Europe. An axe with one head weighs in at about 2-4 lbs (0.90-1.8kg). Add an additional 1lb (0.45kg) or so for the second head and you have that extra weight you have to spend energy swinging. The thing is, you may do some real splash stuff the first couple of minutes, but then your're spent. What are you going to do for the other ten to fifteen minutes of fighting? Also, defensively the axe is a pig any ways, imagine what it would be like with that extra mass and inertia. Relying on your shield when the bad guy gets smart and hits you on your dominant side just don't cut the mustard.
I actually wasn't arguing the point about double bitted axes, just more about the weight therein. I also thought you were talking about lighter than what you stated above, about as light as I would probably want a single handed axe to be.
Getting the wapon moving is not as hard as all that. If they defelct it, you still have momentum to keep it going. Only if they fully stop the blow are you in trouble. To get a weapon to speed, if you can let gravity do the work for you, (raising the head and letting your arm be carried by it), then getting it going is also not as huge a problem.
Personally, I don't see a problem with relying on a shield. It is not so easy a thing to get around, unless you start playing with flails, and used actively can be used to attack or unbalance an opponent. My personal preference (both in and out of TROS) is not to use them, and instead rely on footwork and parries to keep me safe.
Quote from: Ashton
I actually wasn't arguing the point about double bitted axes, just more about the weight therein. I also thought you were talking about lighter than what you stated above, about as light as I would probably want a single handed axe to be.
At this point I am going to guess that we are on side here... :) But I cannot pass up the chance for a good (and possibly enlightening) arguement so...
I was of the (obviously mistaken) impression that you were informing me that the double bitted axe would continue spinning after having cloven the target twain in some bizarre parody of fantasy imagery.
Quote from: Ashton
Getting the wapon moving is not as hard as all that. If they defelct it, you still have momentum to keep it going. Only if they fully stop the blow are you in trouble. To get a weapon to speed, if you can let gravity do the work for you, (raising the head and letting your arm be carried by it), then getting it going is also not as huge a problem.
True, getting a lighter, more practical, weapon up to this speed is not a problem, but fight using the double bitted axe head I was mentioning against a guy using a sword and see who will bring the weapon back on line faster. Momentum only helps if you can use it to come on target before the other guy, no? Fully stopping the blow of any weapon often leads to trouble for the aggressor if I am not mistaken. As for letting gravity do the work of getting the heavier double headed axe (I am guessing the heavier double bitted axe here...) up to speed? Thanks, I now know where your axe is going to be for the opening actions. A quick thrust or cut out of time from the elbow or wrist and I gotcha. The more practical single headed axes do not have such restrictions due to mass and resultant inertia.
Quote from: Ashton
Personally, I don't see a problem with relying on a shield. It is not so easy a thing to get around, unless you start playing with flails, and used actively can be used to attack or unbalance an opponent. My personal preference (both in and out of TROS) is not to use them, and instead rely on footwork and parries to keep me safe.
I never meant to imply that a shield was easy to get around. The axe, is what I am going on about. Who says I want to get close to your shield? I am just as happy taking the arm with the axe in it, or the leg under it. Flails are interesting weapons, I am sure I will get to use them sooner or later, but we are discussing axes. As for parries and footwork, I agree, they are very viable. The best defence is to not be where your opponent's weapon is going to be after all...
Quote from: Mike HolmesQuote from: prophet118also note, that the majority of large ornate double headed axes were usually for executioners
they needed only enough downward pressure to severe a head..
Yeah, these seem to be more tools than weapons. Same with lumberjack axes. These need to be balanced for side to side choping, too (and a second blade makes sense for a guy who's going to have a dull blade after only so many trees).
Mike
yeh... hehe, i saw a history channel show a few months back, about axes... featured an axe throwing contest..
anyways... the duty of the "battle axe"... is simply an axe thats used in battle.. so that anything could pretty much be one.. though the typical battle axe thought of seems to cover alot of types...
ive gathered a few pics that could be thought of as battle axes..
just dont chew me out, i am fully aware that i dont know as much about weapons as i would like
heres some links
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~wyred56/Pictures/axes.jpg)
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~wyred56/Pictures/baxe%201.jpg)
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~wyred56/Pictures/baxe%202.jpg)
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~wyred56/Pictures/baxe%203.jpg)
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~wyred56/Pictures/baxe%204.jpg)
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~wyred56/Pictures/baxe%205.jpg)
these axes are from 2nd edition AD&D, and the game, Rune... i chose those sourcs to show that alot of different kinds of axes, are basically battle axes
Yeah, and only the last one even resembles a real axe...
Jake
actually I thought the hand axe and goblin axe weren't too outrageous...
The goblin axe looks kind of like a bearded viking axe and obviously the last one looks a lot like a Huscarl's long-axe. That reminds me, if were to play a huscarl, what kind of axe would we used from the rules to emulate it? Or should I make a new weapon up and post the rules here?
Jason :)
Yeah, true. The Dwarven Bat. Axe looks fun to swing, huh?
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodYeah, true. The Dwarven Bat. Axe looks fun to swing, huh?
Jake
yeh... does massive amounts of damage in Rune, though its a rare item, so you cant start the game with one... which begs the question. "if thats what people think of when they hear the word battle axe, and its a 'rare' item, why do they seem so common"....lmao
just be glad i didnt show you the hammers, or the swords... the dwarven battle sword is a bit much.. lol
Prophet,
I wish I had seen that show on axes, it sounds kind of interesting.
The pictures of axes you sent shows some great artwork and imagination (in short; Cool!). In addition to Jake's comment about the last pic I see a few that might have ended up being used. The second picture kinda looks like an axe used in the 1400-1500's what with the back spike and all, and the goblin fellow in the second last pic is holding something that could have been no stranger to the battlefield in the hands of a wealthy levy. Of course I have no concrete evidence of such weapons existing, but there are definite similarities to some of the ones on the links I provided above...
i think the show was fairly cool... the axes though, wasx only the last maybe 20 minutes... the best thing to watch, would have been the episode of Conquest where they learned to fight with axes.. hehe
did a whole speil about the uhhh huscarls (is that the right spelling?)
now, i shared what pics i could find, as for the pics from Rune (the first pic)... i dont think all of them are fanciful.. the last few on the right are probably pretty representive of executioners axes... the first 3, were LIKELY used, but again, thats speculation, they do appear to be based on real axes i have seen, though the middle one with the pick on the back looks more like a modern day pick axe than anything else.. lol