What if the axe was a symbol of the nobility?

Sachyriel

Banned
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?
 
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

Banned
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

Banned
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.
 

Deleted member 5719

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

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5719

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.
 

Deleted member 5719

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

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5719

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?
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.
 
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.
 

Deleted member 5719

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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Top