Hi guys,
I'm just curious, were axemen or masemen used in real wars? We know spearmen were - good examples are greek and Macedonian phalanx. Swordsmen were - Rome Legions.
But what about decently sized armies of axemen or masemen?
Thanks!
I'll be focusing on Europe and the Near East because my knowledge of African, Indian, Asian, or Mesoamerican warfare is basically zero.
Axes, swords, and maces were fundamentally secondary weapons compared to a good long stick with a pointy end. (I have my own thoughts about the Roman Gladius and its military use.) I can't think of any classical military units that were equipped solely with axes or maces, but then again, classical military history is not my strong point. Axes were certainly used -the Suebi were quite famous for using axes- and I believe Constantine's army at Milvian Bridge featured Ethiopian auxilliaries wielding massive iron-bound clubs (ie maces). Into the Middle Ages, as many have already noted, the Vikings were well known users of the axe (along with swords!) and were the developer of the famous two-handed 'dane axe'. Prior to this, two-handed axes weren't really a thing as it required some fairly sophisticated metalworking skill to pattern weld the hard edge to a softer core while keeping it sufficiently thin. The two handed dane axe went on to great fame in the heavily norse-influenced Anglo-Saxon Huscarls and the Byzantine Varangian Guard. Axes of varying types were used throughout the middle ages and single and two handed varieties across the spectrum, and if I remember right were quite popular among Arab heavy cavalry in the near east. Note that we have no evidence 'double headed axes' were ever actually a real thing outside of some ceremonial stuff.
As far as maces, they were definitely used in the Middle Ages and were apparently quite popular with Byzantine and Persian heavy cavalry. I believe there was an instance where Hungarian cavalry refused to fight Byzantine cataphracts because of the Byzantine use of maces. It is important to note that the 'macemen' seen in Civilization4 with the ball connected to a handle by chain were, if they were actually used, very rare weapons. Some experimental archaeology with them shows they were very hard to use and quite dangerous to the wielder. As far as two-handed hafts with a chain on the top, those seem to have a been a bit more common, but were an outgrowth from a peasant weapon and likewise appear very uncommon.
In terms of the period I know best, 'Dark Age' and 'Viking Age' warfare in the British Isles, the primary melee weapons were: spear for throwing and stabbing, heavier spear for stabbing, seax/long knife, hand axe, swords for high status individuals, and in the later period dane axes emerged for high status individuals. There are many interesting indications in archaeology that suggest there was a significant shift around 600 AD in how warfare was fought, moving from larger bodies of men fighting in relatively lose formation with a preponderance of throwing weapons toward smaller denser bodies of heavily armed men, and that it is tied in with the collapse of Mediterranean trade routes brought on the the Byzantine Gothic Wars and devastation of Italy and its effect on the British highland kingdoms, but that is getting beyond the scope of the question and is a highly speculative area anyhow given the almost complete lack of written sources. Spears were the most common weapon, good at keeping the enemy away and good at punching through chainmail. The seax/long knife were very common weapons across social classes and would have been very useful if combat turns into, as one historian has described it, a pushing and shoving rugby scrum. Hand axes weren't particularly common among the various inhabitants of Britain, but were very popular among the Vikings. The reasons for that is unclear, but the more compelling arguments I've seen include:
a) the comparative poverty of the Norse and for a side arm hand axes were more effective than seaxs and cheaper than swords;
b) hand axes could be more effective against armor than swords. I'm not entirely sure I buy this, as the Anglo-Saxons weren't stupid and would have used hand axes in combat over swords if there was a clear effectiveness increase. Hand axes are also harder to 'fence' with than swords as the weight in concentrated at the tip. I suspect the use of hand axes by the norse may be in part they were highly effective against the poorly trained fyrd who would be on hand to defend during a raid;
c) hand axes are easier to maintain when you are away from a location with skilled metalworkers. Vikings were originally pirates/raiders, and based on the sagas were at the start of the period likely comprised of thoroughly unlikeable and violent men who got kicked out of the villages by the local jarl for being a wrong-un. Not exactly the sort of people with access to skilled metalworkers needed to maintain and produce swords. Nor are you likely to have access to a skilled swordsmith sailing around and raiding villages.
d) as the period went on, the axe had become associated with the Norse as a sort of 'national weapon' and it was 'expected' a norse warrior fight with an axe.
The two-handed dane axe emerged as a relatively specialized weapon for elite soldiers for both attacking and holding off an enemy. A bunch big guys clad in bright mail, with a helm of gold and garnet and boar tusk, wielding an axe as tall as you, and knowing full well they are your social and military superior is a pretty intimidating sight on the battlefield. Improvements in metallurgy and welding permitted the development of effective two handed axes. The Anglo-Saxon huscarls adopted it after getting conquered by the Danes and developing a Norse-Anglo-Saxon kingdom; and it spread to the Byzantine Varangian Guard through Norse mercenaries, such as Harald Hardrada.
I think so yes, the pikes stop the armoured rider, the mace bludgeons him once unhorsed.
Axes and swords would require much more training to use effectively.
It is worth remembering that the use of any sort of weapon in combat requires a lot of training and experience, even pikes. Without extensive training, a pike block was incapable of doing much more than standing there. As the Swiss discovered, unless you can force the enemy to attack you, a pike block is vulnerable to missile fire and will be outmaneuvered. Getting a pike block on the offensive without losing cohesion is tricky as you have lots of people moving in close formation over rough ground with long weapons. Pretend you get some friends and form up a 3x3 square, all about 8" to a foot apart. Try moving over rough ground. You need to move in an almost perfect straight light or you risk bumping into the person next to you, which might cause people behind you to bump into you. You can't really slow down to step over a tricky bit (leaving out the inevitable bodies falling from earlier combat) without messing up the line behind you.
Re-reading this, I realize that OP wasn't actually answered much. Maces and axes were common as secondary weapons, but what OP is asking is about their use as primary weapon. That's a different thing. Since both weapons need room to swing, their use in classical and medieval Europe was limited due to overall use of close formation on battlefield. The only time I can recall is the use of Goedendag by Flemish militias, and use of large Dane axes and bardiches in northern and eastern Europe, in which they were often used in a manner similar to polearms.
The 'room to swing' wasn't really an issue. The famed dane axe was used in a period of dense shieldwall fighting. If you are fighting with a dane axe, both your hands are wielding it so you have to shield; accordingly, the axe must provide both offense
and defense. If the axe head is pointing away from the enemy, it isn't protecting you and you are wide open to a spear thrust. In any sort of combat, if your weapon isn't pointed at the enemy, you better have a very good reason for it.
As noted, the primary weapon in history, straight up from Ugg the Caveman to arguably the development of breech loading rifles was a long stick or tube with a point on the end, with other weapons serving as a sidearm or a highly specialized role.
However, if you look elsewhere...maces and axes were common main weapons in Bronze Age Europe, Near and Middle East. Egypt, Assyria, and so on. As I mentioned earlier, mace and axe, along with sword, were main weapons of Kshatriya-Indian warrior caste, and regiments of these were fielded in their wars. Maces and clubs were also dominant weapons in Mesoamerican and Incan warfare. I believe you could also find some examples in SE Asia, but I don't recall anything offhand.[/QUOTE]
We got Phro back-then, but we still got
@Ajidica now, perhaps he can elaborate more about this topic.
Thanks for the thoughts!
