What if the axe was a symbol of the nobility?

[Zioneer]

What if the axe was seen as a symbol of the nobility, due to it's use as a weapon of execution, and execution being a power of the nobility?

What if it was respected more than the sword as a weapon of nobles? Would knights and kings wield an jewel-encrusted axe, rather then a sword of the same type?

[T3h_shammy]

Swords just look cooler, also it is easier to use them in combat then axes. Swords promote 1 on 1 combat which was seen as chivalry in its finest. The effects of axe being the weapon of choice i havent a clue.

[cra0422]

Although the axe can work as a weapon, it's not as effective as a sword. Axes are designed to be outdoor tools. You could use a sword to chop wood, but the blade ends up getting ruined.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

An axe is a Cheap, Fairly easy to make weapon/tool. anyone can afford it, and it takes little skill to use.
A sword is a much more expensive weapon, and thus, the best swords go to the people who can afford it.

[Sachyriel]

I could see it being a symbol of nobility if that noble had some sort of recognized interest in joining people in chopping wood. Say it was a hobby of his, a way to relax, not only his weapon, but it's how he handles stress when not at war and talks to some of his subordinates (while chopping the blocks) or the peasantry. Since, you know, this is coming to their level in a non-arrogant way (he's actually chipping and working while he talks!) They'd love him for it, it becomes 'his' symbol, an axe.

[Valdemar II]

Axes was a symbol of nobility for thousands of year, and a battleaxe isn't a tool you use to chop wood.

http://tempus44.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/fasces.jpg

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Axes was a symbol of nobility for thousands of year, and a battleaxe isn't a tool you use to chop wood, i

Well, we should at least get confirmation if the OP means 'Axe' or 'battle-axe'

[Flocculencio]

I could see it being a symbol of nobility if that noble had some sort of recognized interest in joining people in chopping wood.

Kaiser Wilhelm?

[MNP]

Don't forget, swords are roughly symmetrically cross shaped. In a religious society that's also a powerful symbol.

[Sachyriel]

Kaiser Wilhelm?

Random questions aren't something that discussion builds upon, and you're going to have to make a larger post than that to get me to know what you're talking about. Maybe an anecdote or historical record of what he did.

I'm guessing it was a he.:confused:

[Lord Grattan]

Kaiser Wilhelm?

That was after he took early retirement.

[Minchandre]

Axes was a symbol of nobility for thousands of year, and a battleaxe isn't a tool you use to chop wood.



Excellent point about the fasces; IIRC, the point was actually that the axe represented execution and the rods beating, showing the bearer's authority to dispense punishment.

[Flocculencio]

Random questions aren't something that discussion builds upon, and you're going to have to make a larger post than that to get me to know what you're talking about. Maybe an anecdote or historical record of what he did.

I'm guessing it was a he.:confused:

Oy gevalt. It was a joke- after his abdication, the Kaiser lived in exile on an estate in the Netherlands. He went slightly bonkers, as one does, and developed a mania for cutting down trees. By the time he died the estate was mostly deforested.

[Sachyriel]

Oy gevalt. It was a joke- after his abdication, the Kaiser lived in exile on an estate in the Netherlands. He went slightly bonkers, as one does, and developed a mania for cutting down trees. By the time he died the estate was mostly deforested.

Well, at least he didn't go apeshit crazy and throw fasces.:p

[Stephen]

The main disadvantage to the battle axe is that it is harder to defend with compared to a sword. They mainly proliferate when body armour becomes more common on the battlefield requiring a heavier weapon with a little more punch.

[Flocculencio]

Excellent point about the fasces; IIRC, the point was actually that the axe represented execution and the rods beating, showing the bearer's authority to dispense punishment.

However that was a Republican symbol- in the end the fasces represented the authority bestowed upon an individual by the Senate and People of Rome. I can't think of an instance in which an axe symbol has been used to show personal noble authority.

[Sachyriel]

However that was a Republican symbol- in the end the fasces represented the authority bestowed upon an individual by the Senate and People of Rome. I can't think of an instance in which an axe symbol has been used to show personal noble authority.[..]

...In Europe. Specific examples might be lost to history, but in North America, the image of the Tomahawk can be used with the image of the Pipe (pipe inside the axe). The pipe would be used to smoke Kinikinik (I'm not so good with Ojibwe [Aaniishnaabemowin] and it's not even the right tribe [but right language family!], but points for trying?:o:)) which was a sacred mixture of Tobacco (Aasemaa), Cedar and some other sacred plants. The effects of this mixture induced a similar state to what we see in smokers today, but allow for a difference in culture to indicate it was used as a respected ritualistic item instead of a consumer addiction. The Nicotine wasn't as powerful (though it had no filter) but the other herbs made it pretty tasty, and smoking it with another person was a sign of entering a semi-formal treaty (giving tobacco to an elder or someone you respect still has some of the same connotations on my reservation). Anyways, rambling a bit, but the point is that the Tomahawk and Pipe can be put together to get a symbol of the tribe it comes from, especially the chiefs who will pass it to one another as a sign of respect when entering agreements. It's also where 'bury the hatchet' comes from I've heard.

[Boto von Ageduch]

What about a Minoan victory TL and their favorite symbol of the double axe?

OK, it's a bit of a stretch for just exchanging a symbol ...


The battleaxe-bearers were still playing an important role in parades of Napoleonic-time armies. No doubt, their actual application was outdated then, but I don't have any clue what function they would be assigned to in an early-modernity battle. Would they clear the way when the pikes had hopelessly entangled into each other?

Of course, the axe-bearers were prominent within the military, but not noblemen.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

The battleaxe-bearers were still playing an important role in parades of Napoleonic-time armies. No doubt, their actual application was outdated then, but I don't have any clue what function they would be assigned to in an early-modernity battle. Would they clear the way when the pikes had hopelessly entangled into each other?

Battle axes, Halbereds, and other large Axes would probably take more metal than they're worth, and be hard to use. Need space to swing, and if the pikes are entangled, then there probably wouldn't be enough space to do so.

Hand axes, and tomahawks would be easier to keep in combat situations. that's about it.

[seraphim74]

Axes are simply too common. A sword was a symbol of a warrior, and noblemen usually were a warrior cast. A sword is good for only one thing - battle. Meanwhile an axe is a tool every peasant needs from time to time. You can forbid a peasant having a sword - it is not necessary for him in every day life. But an axe?
And now, since everybody have axes, there is no big difference between a nobleman and a peasant. Sure, a nobleman has beautiful, deadly battleaxe, and a peasant a simple axe, but both those weapons are too similar. A sword is something that distinguish a knight.

[Boto von Ageduch]

Axes are simply too common. A sword was a symbol of a warrior, and noblemen usually were a warrior cast. A sword is good for only one thing - battle. Meanwhile an axe is a tool every peasant needs from time to time. You can forbid a peasant having a sword - it is not necessary for him in every day life. But an axe?
And now, since everybody have axes, there is no big difference between a nobleman and a peasant. Sure, a nobleman has beautiful, deadly battleaxe, and a peasant a simple axe, but both those weapons are too similar. A sword is something that distinguish a knight.

Of course you are right. Rareness can be an important ingredient for symbols of power or grandeur. But: It is not necessary. Think of the bishops' crook, which also used to be a common piece of equipment once. Or, in combination with a crook, the Pharao's little flail.

Crook, flail, and axe have in common that they require a very old tradition. A newly invented symbol in the middle-ages would look different.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Of course you are right. Rareness can be an important ingredient for symbols of power or grandeur. But: It is not necessary. Think of the bishops' crook, which also used to be a common piece of equipment once. Or, in combination with a crook, the Pharao's little flail.

Crook, flail, and axe have in common that they require a very old tradition. A newly invented symbol in the middle-ages would look different.

Simultaniously the Crook represents the Bishop's position as "The shepard of his Flock", giving more meaning, and the Pharoh's Flail is to symbolize his power to provide food to his subjects.
It's not the tool, it's what it represents as well.

like it was mentioned earlier, the Sword, and in most cases the spear as well, has a cross shape, to symbolize the power of the Royalty wielding it. It shows his wealth, that God is on his side, and his power, as he should be skilled enough to wield it in battle.

The axe is less expensive, has little to no symbolism (Usually), and is one of the easiest weapons to wield in battle, so it's harder to have it replace the Sword a symbol of power.

[seraphim74]

Notice that bishop's crook and pharaoh's flail are purely ceremonial and symbolic. Nobody expected them to be actually used. Meanwhile a sword is a perfect combination of a symbol of distinguished warrior cast and practical use as a weapon. And axe is still a common tool, too easy to wield. Almost everybody can fight with an axe. OTOH fighting with a sword requires much more skills and training. If you carry a sword, it means you are one from the elite warrior group.
BTW I don't think that cross-like shape was a decisive factor. Sword (or rather katana) distinguished a samurai in medieval Japan (not Christian). OTOH, noblemen in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used sabres (not cross-like) and considered them a symbol of their nobility.

[Zioneer]

Well, we should at least get confirmation if the OP means 'Axe' or 'battle-axe'

I meant Axes in general, but in particular, the kind of axe used for executions (so I suppose a battle-axe?)

[Gladi]

I meant Axes in general, but in particular, the kind of axe used for executions (so I suppose a battle-axe?)

Bright day
Nope, just an executioner's axe, which like the executioner's sword, was very impractical as a weapon.

[boynamedsue]

This isn't that hard to do. The Saxons, Norse and Franks used battle axes extensively. Change the result of the battle of Hastings and axes are still in use by elites in England and Scandinavia, while lower status warriors use spears and short swords.

The problem with the axe is that it is ineffective on horseback (too top heavy, you drop it), so if horseback warfare takes over you lose it.

But if England retains its axe tradition to 1400, simultaneously developing the longbow as OTL, you could have bad-arse, axe-wielding, plate-armoured Saxon Huscarles smashing the French at *Agincourt.

[seraphim74]

With different outcome of battle of Hastings there would probably be no Hundred Years War, you know. Big butterflies.

[Valdemar II]

This isn't that hard to do. The Saxons, Norse and Franks used battle axes extensively. Change the result of the battle of Hastings and axes are still in use by elites in England and Scandinavia, while lower status warriors use spears and short swords.

The problem with the axe is that it is ineffective on horseback (too top heavy, you drop it), so if horseback warfare takes over you lose it.

But if England retains its axe tradition to 1400, simultaneously developing the longbow as OTL, you could have bad-arse, axe-wielding, plate-armoured Saxon Huscarles smashing the French at *Agincourt.

No you wouldn't huscarles are inferior to knights, Denmark, Sweden and North Germany use the same fighting style, and they began to drop them by the 12th century and replace them with heavy cavalry.

[MarkhamS.Pyle]

The Old Man of the Mountain sent his heralds before him bearing a silver axe with the haft stuck through with knives, crying, 'Make way for him who bears the lives of kings [in some versions, 'the deaths of kings'] in his hand', you will recall.

Outside Scandinavia, I cannot see the axe as a royal badge and thus percolating down to the nobility as a status symbol, in Christian Europe; however, one might just and with effort imagine some Crusaders adopting an axe based upon that of the Master of Alamut, in rivalry thereof.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

BTW I don't think that cross-like shape was a decisive factor. Sword (or rather katana) distinguished a samurai in medieval Japan (not Christian). OTOH, noblemen in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used sabres (not cross-like) and considered them a symbol of their nobility.

Considering the OP stated the Use of Axes in Execution, I assumed he ment Europe, sense Japanese axes were rarely used for anything out side of Agriculture.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Considering the OP stated the Use of Axes in Execution, I assumed he ment Europe, sense Japanese axes were rarely used for anything out side of Agriculture.
IIRC weren't swords a very common execution tool even in Europe? I know they were prevalent for that purpose all over Germany at least. A fact which could make this all the more difficult.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

IIRC weren't swords a very common execution tool even in Europe? I know they were prevalent for that purpose all over Germany at least. A fact which could make this all the more difficult.

Was it?

Ok, according to a Quick wiki seach, the Executioner's sword was widely used in the 17th century, and fell out of use in the 18th century for an unknown reason.
Also should be noted they were of very good quality metal.

[Bmao]

Was it?

Ok, according to a Quick wiki seach, the Executioner's sword was widely used in the 17th century, and fell out of use in the 18th century for an unknown reason.
Also should be noted they were of very good quality metal.

Because the guillotine became more efficient and became the tool of choice when executing the noble classes of Europe?

[Boto von Ageduch]

Execution with the sword was long considered a mild sentence of death,
and a privilege of nobility (I suppose form High Middle ages until Early Modernity).
Execution with an axe was the default method.

[seraphim74]

All this about an axe as a symbol of execution... What kind of a nobleman would want to be seen as an executioner? Men of that profession were not exactly liked or respected in medieval Europe. Sure, they gave the people a good show, but nobody actually liked to have an executioner in his neighbourhood. I think in some towns they were forced to live outside town walls.

Originally posted by Fenrir_Angerboda
Considering the OP stated the Use of Axes in Execution, I assumed he ment Europe, sense Japanese axes were rarely used for anything out side of Agriculture.

I used that example as an counterargument for sword as a cross symbol (together with Polish sabres). However, the rest about sword as a symbol of elite warrior cast (those who have enough of free time to learn how to use a sword) works as well as an argument against axe.

[Bucky]

Axes was a symbol of nobility for thousands of year, and a battleaxe isn't a tool you use to chop wood.

http://tempus44.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/fasces.jpg

The Roman fasces was the sign of a republic. They were all over the early iconography of the young American republic. George Washington statues feature them--minus the ax, except in war time. The bound sticks don't just represent the state's ability to bind the people, but also the way that the state was stronger because of popular loyalty as a bundle is stronger than a single pole. The binding-the-people thing was more of Mussolini's spin on the symbol.

Of course symbols being malleable things, as Benito showed, you can twist them to mean anything. Nobles might have adopted the bear instead of the horse as their symbol; or fish instead crosses could have been the symbol of Christianity. Until 1890 or so, the Star of David was an interfaith symbol rather than specifically a Jewish one.

[GreatScottMarty]

how about the handsaw develops earlier and the axe is used almost exclusively for combat? no idea on a POD

[Bucky]

how about the handsaw develops earlier and the axe is used almost exclusively for combat? no idea on a POD

The PoD would be that someone develops the handsaw earlier. I guess it would have to wait until steel sheet metals longer than a knight's torso are a feasible build. But medieval trades craftsmen would certainly make far more ornate two-handed saws than the utilitarian crap you get from Home Depot.

[boynamedsue]

With different outcome of battle of Hastings there would probably be no Hundred Years War, you know. Big butterflies.


Thats why I said "*Agincourt" not "Agincourt".

[boynamedsue]

No you wouldn't huscarles are inferior to knights, Denmark, Sweden and North Germany use the same fighting style, and they began to drop them by the 12th century and replace them with heavy cavalry.

True, but in combination with the longbow it might work as a system.
If you minimise wars outside the British Isles, they might not need a better system.

After all, not everyone uses the best tech. The west never developed effective horse archery, even though their muslim and byzantine neighbours had it for thousands of years.

[Sachyriel]

The PoD would be that someone develops the handsaw earlier. I guess it would have to wait until steel sheet metals longer than a knight's torso are a feasible build. But medieval trades craftsmen would certainly make far more ornate two-handed saws than the utilitarian crap you get from Home Depot.

Why not get some bright lad (or lass?) to come up with the idea of a water-powered sawmill earlier, making the saw the greatest wood-splitting tool earlier instead of the axe? Axe gets an air of tradition, nobles pick it up for moments when they have to impress their peasants with how 'like them' they are by chopping some wood, and voila?

[Flocculencio]

Anyways, rambling a bit, but the point is that the Tomahawk and Pipe can be put together to get a symbol of the tribe it comes from, especially the chiefs who will pass it to one another as a sign of respect when entering agreements. It's also where 'bury the hatchet' comes from I've heard.

So how is that personal noble authority? Again what you've got there is the tomahawk representing the collective leadership of the tribe.

[Sachyriel]

So how is that personal noble authority? Again what you've got there is the tomahawk representing the collective leadership of the tribe.

Oh, because it's the authority of the two chiefs taking part in the peace ceremony that the pipe/tomahawk actually symbolizes, I don't know how you get this collective leadership thing. It's not about to symbolize a long history of war, since they know that happened. The two chiefs would want to smoke the pipe, of peace, from a weapon of war to make sure that it's seen as something you pass on peaceably, between the leaders of two tribes. And it's only one mans pipe, probably whomever owns it has a particular sign to their tomahawk and pipe, feathers, painted handle, maybe even a certain inscription into the blade itself.

Edit: I saw you DP :p

[Valdemar II]

True, but in combination with the longbow it might work as a system.
If you minimise wars outside the British Isles, they might not need a better system.

After all, not everyone uses the best tech. The west never developed effective horse archery, even though their muslim and byzantine neighbours had it for thousands of years.

Horse cavalry sucks outside skirmishing, something which is useless with Europes geography and population density. You need wide open plain for that.

[boynamedsue]

Horse cavalry sucks outside skirmishing, something which is useless with Europes geography and population density. You need wide open plain for that.

It worked really well for the mongols; when facing traditional heavy cavalry, they massacred them.

Another example of sub-optimum warfare: The Muslims of the Middle East and Spain never developed the heavy-armoured knight. Nor did the Irish

I'm not arguing that axeman + longbow is better than heavy cavalry, but that it could develop as a feasible system that was good enough to survive if there was not too much *English involvement on the continent. That would then fulfil the OP's condition of the axe as symbol of nobility.

[Valdemar II]

It worked really well for the mongols; when facing traditional heavy cavalry, they massacred them.

Yes it therefor we remember the Mongol conquest of Paris. The Mongols beat European heavy cavalry in Hungary (a country which remark itself by being overrun with horse nomads 4 time in known history, because of the simple fact that it's plainland) beside that it defeated other European heavy cavalry on the plains again.

[Marr965]

Sorry 'bout this, but I do re-enactment, and it's Norman era. I can think of one way an axe might be a symbol of authority: Men-at-arms. Your average man-at-arms will be a conscript, doing army service during times of war. He will probably have a spear, an aketon/gambeson and a helmet. That's it. He might have a knife. A spear is even more a common weapon than an axe, the reason being, a spear can be as little as a sharpened stick, possibly with a knife lashed to the end to supply a reliable point. An axe needs a metal head, and metal is EXPENSIVE! If you can afford enough metal to make an axe-head, let alone two (one for wood, one for people), you are doing well for yourself. Metal being expensive is the reason that a specialised warrior class exists. Knights were the tanks of the norman era, and they knew it. In fact, crossbows were banned by the POPE for taking down too many knights. (crossbows were easy to learn. I quote: "a longbow takes years of training to learn how to use effectively, whereas you can teach any idiot how to use a crossbow in five minutes" (this is usually followed by "and this is our idiot")) Longbows, a skilled weapon, never had that problem. (One thing you need to remember is that plate armour hadn't been invented at the dates we re-enact. Mail (not chainmail, that's a Victorian word) was the most heavy armour of the day, and it was too easily broken by arrows - Making wearing it useful, but not incredibly useful.)
The problem with the axe is that it is ineffective on horseback (too top heavy, you drop it), so if horseback warfare takes over you lose it.
Norman knights rode on horseback, and used maces. If you want to say that a lever effect on a large lump of metal on a stick is worse with an axe than with a mace, then fine, but you aren't getting any history marks from me. Incidentally, the mace is a very effective weapon on horseback. Swing it underarm, charging towards your opponent, and you might be able to break their spine, even hitting their chest. Indeed, we only use maces to hit shields, not each other (or at least, not each other on purpose...).
I'm not arguing that axeman + longbow is better than heavy cavalry,
Okay, well, how about spearman + Longbow? The horse will not be too happy about charging the sharp pointy stick, and the longbow wreaks havoc with unified, organized charges. The longbow is the medieval machine gun. Well trained archers could loose (not fire, that's gunpowder weapons) 30 arrows per minute. English civil war (roundheads, cavaliers) tactics involved horses, guns and pikes. A standard battle went one side fires, the other side charges on horseback, the first side closes and lowers pikes, horses retreat, the the other side gets a go.

[boynamedsue]

Norman knights rode on horseback, and used maces. If you want to say that a lever effect on a large lump of metal on a stick is worse with an axe than with a mace, then fine, but you aren't getting any history marks from me. Incidentally, the mace is a very effective weapon on horseback. Swing it underarm, charging towards your opponent, and you might be able to break their spine, even hitting their chest. Indeed, we only use maces to hit shields, not each other (or at least, not each other on purpose...).


The Normans used maces rather than axes because the axe is impractical on horse back, too top heavy, not easy to control and prone to getting hooked and pulled out your hand.

I agree with you that a spear + axe + longbow system could work in an alt-England.

[boynamedsue]

Yes it therefor we remember the Mongol conquest of Paris. The Mongols beat European heavy cavalry in Hungary (a country which remark itself by being overrun with horse nomads 4 time in known history, because of the simple fact that it's plainland) beside that it defeated other European heavy cavalry on the plains again.

Yes, and it's also quite clear that the longbow was inferior to the bagpipe as a weapon, because, during the middle ages, the English never once conquered the isle of Tiree.

The Mongols conquered the mountains of Coatia, Iran, and Anatolia quite effectively, the reason they didn't conquer Western Europe was that they never tried.

[Valdemar II]

Yes, and it's also quite clear that the longbow was inferior to the bagpipe as a weapon, because, during the middle ages, the English never once conquered the isle of Tiree.

The Mongols conquered the mountains of Coatia, Iran, and Anatolia quite effectively, the reason they didn't conquer Western Europe was that they never tried.

Anatolia and Iran are prime territorium for nomadic invasion, and has been overrun several times.

[Marr965]

Yes, and it's also quite clear that the longbow was inferior to the bagpipe as a weapon,
Sigged. Just for the lols.
In real news:{SNIP}the axe is impractical on horse back, too top heavy{SNIP}
Explain to me in what way an axe is more top-heavy than a mace? Please also explain in what way an axe is more impractical than a mace on horseback?{SNIP}I agree with you that a spear + axe + longbow system could work in an alt-England.{SNIP}
It not only could work in an alt-England, it actually worked. Longbowmen were the backbone of the Norman army after the invasion, and even before they were very effective. What was it that opened Haroldup to being killed? Practically any combination of archers with other men is a good combination. Add some crossbows (for armour penetration) and you have a very effective killing squad.

[boynamedsue]

[QUOTE=Marr965;2876258]Sigged. Just for the lols.
In real news:
Explain to me in what way an axe is more top-heavy than a mace? Please also explain in what way an axe is more impractical than a mace on horseback?
[QUOTE]


In terms of pure weight, you might be right, depending on the size of the mace (not all of the were massive). But the blades are more likely to get hooked on armour or stuck in somebody's body, and so yanked out of your hand. In addition, you are attempting to apply force to a long thin strip of sharp metal that has to directed towards its target at a certain angle, so it's harder use. In addition to that, the shape makes it more unwieldy, when used one handed anyway, icreasing the chance that you follow through incorrectly, or lose control and hit yourself or your horse.

I'm not saying the axe is not unusable on horseback (but hey, neither is the nun-chuk), just that it's not ideal.

Having said that, I wouldn't fancy a load of axe-wielding horsemen charging at me.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

I'm not saying the axe is not unusable on horseback (but hey, neither is the nun-chuk), just that it's not ideal.

Having said that, I wouldn't fancy a load of axe-wielding horsemen charging at me.

For the record there are apparently Horseman's Axes.
They appear to be one-handed, and they seem to have been fairly effective.

[boynamedsue]

For the record there are apparently Horseman's Axes.
They appear to be one-handed, and they seem to have been fairly effective.

They would be, but I reckon they were more difficult to use than other alternatives.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

They would be, but I reckon they were more difficult to use than other alternatives.

Here's a picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b3/Horseman%27s_axe.JPG/800px-Horseman%27s_axe.JPG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Horseman%27s_axe.JPG)

alternate models have a Hammerhead instead of a pick on the back, about 69 cm (27 inches) long.
seems like decent weapon for smashing helmets and stabbing.

[Alexius]

Well, the sceptre is basically a symbolic mace, and there are more "mace-like" ones- see for instance the ones in most parliaments. We've also seen shepherd's crooks, flails and staves (Byzantine dekanikion) used as symbols of nobility.

I seem to remember in some countries the traditional shepherd's crook has an axe-head on it. That sort of axe-crook could be a good symbol of a king's powers and duties- to keep his "flock"/people in line with the crook, and punish troublemakers with the axe.

Other ideas:
Could an alternate Roman Empire have kept the axe as a symbol of Imperial power? ISTR only proconsuls (and maybe dictators) had the axe in their fasces- if that was one of the titles of the Emperor (along with consul, censor, tribune and Pontifex Maximus) then he could have had an axe, which would then be appropriated by various later rulers.

The huscarl idea is a good one. Possibly a different religion would avoid the sword/cross thing.

Perhaps a taboo on using swords (maybe for religious reasons). Robert Jordan's fictional Aiel have the idea that a sword exists only to kill people, unlike any other weapon (you can hunt with a spear, cut wood with an axe, etc), so refuse to own or use (or even touch) them. Combine that idea with "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", possibly St. Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the idea that owning swords is something that those other people do...

[Theodoric]

Wasn't the ax a weapon that the Franks (of the Frankish Emperor that ruled quite a large portion of Europe) were known for using?

[Marr965]

The axe certainly would have been used among the nobility, but it wouldn't be a symbol of them. Or at least, I don't think it would be. They were probably suffuciently common that most people could use them.

[Nitzkrieg]

If the axe was the symbol, we would probably see an increase in badassery in European History by about 400%!

On point, the battleaxe is a sweet weapon. Up there with warhammers and the like. Naturally, the countries inclined to use it would be more northerly.

As a counter to people that said that swords are somewhat cross-like, whereas the axe is not and therefore not as useful Christian imagery, I would like to point out that a dual-headed axe looks very much like an Iron Cross. Which is actually what would make this timeline another 100% cooler.