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!

Wolfen wrote:
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?

Ashton wrote:

Wolfen wrote:
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.

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..

prophet118 wrote: 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..

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.

Ashton wrote:
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.

Ashton wrote:
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.

Ashton wrote:
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.

Mike Holmes wrote:

prophet118 wrote: 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..

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

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

Jake Norwood wrote: Yeah, true. The Dwarven Bat. Axe looks fun to swing, huh?

Jake

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