Vikings and their toys..

[Sneaky Git]

Here's a question.. many Vikings (circa 1000 CE) used a broad axe as a personal weapon (rather than a sword).  Supposedly, a warrior armed with this weapon was capable of decapitating a horse with one stroke.  Does the Hand Axe archetype accurately convey this capability?

[Jake Norwood]

Here's a question.. many Vikings (circa 1000 CE) used a broad axe as a personal weapon (rather than a sword).  Supposedly, a warrior armed with this weapon was capable of decapitating a horse with one stroke.  Does the Hand Axe archetype accurately convey this capability?

Honestly, this sounds mythological to me. I know that various forms of hand axe were used massively by the vikings, but no axe with a head wide enough to decapitate a horse would be functional in the real world.

Jake

[Mike Holmes]

Honestly, this sounds mythological to me.

I'd agree, but...

I know that various forms of hand axe were used massively by the vikings, but no axe with a head wide enough to decapitate a horse would be functional in the real world.

hmmm. Broadaxes are (and were), well, broad. It is from longer and longer axes that we eventually get swords. Note the shape of a khopesh. I'd agree with the poster that such a weapon should have it's own rules. OTOH, I'm betting this is a better weapon for chopping wood than people. Hence the later defelopment of smaller hand axes. Thus the stats would make it pretty unweildy, I'd think.

Mike

[Blake Hutchins]

My understanding of the Norseman's axe was that it was a two-handed war axe that could fell a horse with one blow, a very different thing than outright decapitation, noteworthy because of how often Vikings on foot faced cavalry opposition.

Best,

Blake

[Mokkurkalfe]

OTOH, I'm betting this is a better weapon for chopping wood than people.

OTOH again, axes where common partly because of how common it was as a tool. They used it for everything; ship building, board making, fighting, woodcutting and so forth.

[Mike Holmes]

OTOH again, axes where common partly because of how common it was as a tool. They used it for everything; ship building, board making, fighting, woodcutting and so forth.

I completely agree. I'm just poointing out how such a generalized tool may not be particularly effective as a weapon. Just a bit unwieldy in the heat of combat. But fine for calm swings at logs.

Mike

[Sneaky Git]

I completely agree. I'm just poointing out how such a generalized tool may not be particularly effective as a weapon. Just a bit unwieldy in the heat of combat. But fine for calm swings at logs.

True.. however, were I in the habit of going "a-viking," I'm reasonably certain I would select a weapon that was more (rather than less) effective in combat.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would rely on a substandard weapon unless they had to.  The Norse, from what I understand, typically were the aggressors.. and were able to choose the time and place of their battles.

I'm not stating that they didn't have these general purpose axes.. instead, I'm saying that an axe used in combat by these folks would be effective.. or it wouldn't be used.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Vikings used the sword, if they had a choice. However, the poor lad on the farm going to plunder England probably has to take his spear or axe.
Some think that the viking travels started because of overpopulation. Thus, somebody without land goes of to kill the christian man.
I'm not sure if the axes they wore in battle where specialized or general purpose. However, it was cheaper than the (preferred) sword, as where the spear.

[Sneaky Git]

Okay.. let me see if I can clear things up.  After a little research, I've discovered that I'm talking about the broad axe, also known as the Dane-Axe.  First seen during the 10th century CE, it was introduced by the Danes and adopted by the Saxons.  The blades from existing museum pieces are of lighter (less bulky) construction than one-handed axes, and one theory is that they were derived from axes used to slaughter animals, rather than chop wood.  These weapons had cutting edges between 9"-18" and had a long (4'-6') haft of ash (no one-handed use here!).

The Bayeux Tapestry and accounts from the Battle of Hastings depict these axes (wielded by Saxon huscarls) cleaving through both men (mailed Norman knights) and horses.  This was a fearsome weapon, indeed!

Obviously, one would be unable to make use of a shield in concert with this weapon, leaving one relatively vulnerable to missile attack (and the odd spear thrust, etc.).  I cannot see anyone doing this out of necessity.. as arming yourself with a shield and short thrusting spear would be cheaper (or at least close in cost).  It seems to me that one would choose (rather than be forced) to wield such a weapon.. and that being the case, wouldn't it be safe to expect that the weapon worked?

So.. back to my original question.  The Hand Axe archetype.. a little on the soft side for this weapon?  Or does it cover such a weapon as this (two-handed)?

Now, I will also be the first to admit that I really have no idea what a poleaxe is.. so could that be used to simulate a broad axe?  Or are they completely different?

[Jake Norwood]

You're definitely looking for a poleaxe. Definitely.

Jake

[Sneaky Git]

You're definitely looking for a poleaxe. Definitely.

That's what I was looking for.. thanks!  Now, what to do with this info..
Hmm.. a Savaxen huscarl.. hmm..
Thanks again!

[kviksverd]

Just picked up the game, so I don't have much of a feel for the mechanics yet.

While using poleaxe stats would certainly be adequate for handling broadaxes (and perhaps bardiches, etc), historically they were two fairly different weapons.  In a viking type campaign, it could be worthwhile to come up with separate stats for the latter.

I was thinking, maybe something along the following lines...

Danish Broadaxe

[*] Grip, Length:  2H, Long[*] ATN:  6[*] DTN:  8[*] Damage:  ST+3c[*] Notes:  as for Hand Axe[/list:u]

Some of the thinking/assumptions behind this...

Long, approx. 12" axe blade on about a 5' haft.  The blade is extremely thin and light however, solely a weapon, and not intended for use as a tool--therefore, actually a bit quicker in use than a Hand (Battle) Axe.

Lacking the langets/foregrip of the later period Pole Axe, as well as the armour defeating pick/hammer.  Therefore, a bit quicker, but lacking the defensive capability, 'half-sword-like' abilities, and heavy armour penetration.

Often used for 'hooking'--including pulling aside shields.

A truly fearsome weapon, but one geared towards the offensive, and requiring a fearless warrior to wield it in battle.

Note:  Given the great sweep required, I was also considering raising the DTN to 9--halfway between the 1H and 2H Hand Axe.  But, I thought the longer haft would allow some 'staff-like' maneuvers that would bring it back on par (at least) with the 2H Hand Axe.

Thoughts?

[kviksverd]

Activity seems to have picked up (because GenCon ended?) so I thought I'd bump this to get some feedback from those more familiar with the system.

Is the above reasonable, or is there some problem with it that I'm overlooking?

Thanks.

[Jake Norwood]

Depending on the weight of the axe and it's manueverablitly I'd jack up the ATN to 7, but only maybe. Other than that, it looks good.

Jake

[Valamir]

Given that the length is given as long and the weapon is clearly for swinging I think the ATN could indeed be moved to 7.

In our game at Gen Con I was playing a Savraxen armed with one of these axes using the Pole Axe stats.  Damage of STR+3 is seriously nasty.  I was longing for an ATN of 6 in my game...because then I would have been a truly mighty death dealing machine.

I would LOVE to have a brutal damage axe wielding Frisian with an ATN of 6 to chop down those rapier guys like firewood...but it would really make the axe very devastating from a game perspective.

The DTN of 8 might help to mitigate this though...would have to play it out to know for sure...it would ensure that such weapons would have to be used in a truly aggressive berserker style which might itself be interesting to fight against.