Did VIKINGS use AXES because they were.. POOR?

Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:

Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:

Matt Easton's website and services:

Easton Antique Arms:

[uncleheavy]

For many years I did Viking reenactment. As part of this is agreed to take part in some filming that involved a Viking amphibious landing. With absolutely no forethought, I hopped off the boat into waist deep sea water. My very pretty sword and scabbard was completely submerged in the sea. This made a real mess of my blade (lots of repolishing was needed) and it took about a week for the scabbard to dry out. Salt water and steel are not a good combination. Dunking an axe in water is much less emotional that doing the same with a very expensive sword. So, maybe for a quick shipbporne raid, a lot of the swords were left safely wrapped up in oilskins (or similar) and an axe was grabbed instead. A bright red axe is far less depressing than a bright red, insanely expensive sword. On a broader note, swords and spears are kind of civilised - an axe screams extreme prejudice.

[tl]

Viking: "Will he really need this very expensive mail shirt in the Afterlife?"
Another Viking: "You know, I heard in Valhalla, they all fight naked..."
A third Viking: "I think it would be disrespectful to bury him with it, even!"

[mistahanansi]

Vikings with iron axes: “I wish to go raiding so I can get rich!”
Vikings with steel swords: “I wish to go raiding so I can stay rich!”
Vikings with iron swords: “Dammit, it broke! I should’ve just brought an axe…”

[chabis]

Sweden is famous for it's non-lack of high quality steel.

[IceniBrave]

A lot of people are commenting things like "Vikings were used to using axes as tools" or "Vikings used shields and axes are good against shields" are forgetting that these things were also true of basically everyone else in Europe. I think to understand why the Norse used an unusual amount of combat axes you have to look for an explanation that doesn't also apply to everyone else. Almost the only thing that distinguishes the Norse from other cultures of the time was the fact that they were ship borne raiders. Matt's point that they were mostly engaged in offensive operations against lightly armed and unprepared villagers ties into this. But I think that more importantly swords are harder to maintain against corrosive salt water than axes. The Norse would spend long weeks at sea in open topped, low sided vessels, maybe fight one or two brief actions, and then jump right back into the boats. Keeping an expensive and (comparatively) delicate sword rust free though all that would be a nightmare. If the water gets into the hilt fittings unnoticed you might find the handle snapping off at an embarrassing moment. An axe will still batter down a fleeing monk even with a healthy coating of rust, and even if you just sack off oiling it for the whole voyage, it's probably retrievable when you get home, and replaceable if not.

[screwtape]

There is a famous episode of royalty using a "Danish axe" a bit later: King Stephen of England at the First Battle of Lincoln in 1141. When surrounded, he seized an axe and laid about him so effectively that nobody could get near him -- until the axe broke from the number and force of his blows, after which he was grabbed, captured, and held for ransom.

[invictus]

Matt is brilliant in extending one sentence worth of info into whole 14 minutes, lol. With respect

[rubbers]

A point of an "economic" argument is that an axe head can be remounted on a new shaft if the old one is broken/damaged, while repairing a sword is much more difficult. You can make a new shaft quite easily with common tools, even in a foreign land on a raid, while repairing a broken/damaged sword is much more difficult, requires specialised tools and skills. If you could have two axes for the price of a sword and you expect a lot of actual combat, not just wearing it around, then having a sword that will break more easily than an axe head is just not worth it.

Swords make sense if you wear them and use them from time to time, axes make sense if you use them all the time. It's good to have a sword, it's good to use an axe.


This might not be a major reason, but it's worth considering nonetheless.

[olinseats]

There are several viable reasons for prioritizing axes as the weapon of choice for those who went raiding. they all boil down to the ease of use, care, maintenance, and repair both in the field and onboard ships. Seafaring and steel with large surface areas don't mix very well. the smaller surface area of an axe blade is much easier to maintain against salt corrosion. The smaller effective cutting edge would also be safer to carry on board a ship rolling in the waves. The more robust cutting angle of an axe blade also means that the blade itself is much harder to damage in ways that would undermine the weapon's strength. The weakest spot on an axe is the handle, and replacing a handle in the field is as simple as finding a sturdy bit of wood and affixing the blade. Any damage done to a sword would likely need an experienced smith to repair. Ease of use and basic utility are also going to be the big reasons, though. You can only carry so much gear on a longboat, so if your primary bit of kit can be both a weapon and a tool that's much less garbage to haul around. Spears share many of the same features that make an axe good, but you can't use a spear in the field for things like camp chores.

[TwoHands]

I would argue that there's a cultural and mythological component to the use of axes, as well; several Indo-European Thunder Gods are associated with axes, that seemingly morphed into hammers later, and thus they carry great significance as weapons of war. In Scandinavia, almost 3000 years before the Vikings, the axe was even then a important cultural and religious item and symbol for war, conquest and nobility; graves have been found where there is almost all the time an axe placed in head height of the buried warrior man, and we know that the Battle Axe Culture brought the Indo-European People, Culture, Religion and Language into Scandinavia, and the Viking obsession with them seem to be a carry-over (and as well as being a fine and functional weapon of war) from that time.

[vde]

Speaking of the Viking "protection racket": There is an interesting distinction between the words "välde" and "rike" in the Scandinavian languages (here specifically Swedish). The first one could be translated as "power" or "overlordship" and denotes how far afield a tribe or kingdom are able to raise tribute, while the second one means "realm" or "kingdom" and denotes a polity of free men under a ruler. So to take the Swedish example: We have "Svealand", the tribal homeland of the Swedes, which used to just refer to the lands around lake Malar but has come to mean all of central Sweden; then we had "Sveaväldet", the quite vast areas around the Baltic sea from where the king at Uppsala took tribute; and then when the Geats formed a permanent union with the Swedes and forming a more modern realm, this was called "Svea rike" or "Sverige" for short, which is still the name of the country.

[deeps]

I can still see a 'fashion' or culture thing being part of it. Maybe not the whole answer but even now people will try and make their own culture distinctive and different from others or their neighbours. Might be talking bollox of course, wouldn't be the first time.

[TheSageThrasher]

The number of rivets used in Viking ships indicate iron was plentiful. They even made bog iron rivets on the fly in Newfoundland (L'Anse au Meadows archaeological site.)

[natehammar]

I think economics was a starting point at the beginning of the Viking age, but I agree they chose to keep using them when they could have changed. It is very likely they found axes to be more useful as raiders for fighting on ships, for using as tools, and for creating a terrifying personage when they attacked.

There is a viciously cold efficiency to an axe compared to the elegance of a sword. Axes are brutal and aggressive. They are all attack and basically no defense. Instilling fear in those you intend to raid is as important as being truly dangerous.

We see this spelled out in the pirate age of the Caribbean in the 17th and 18th century. Pirates liked having horrible reputations because it made their job easier as most would just give up to avoid the worst predations.

[Keiken]

Anglo man flexing his sword collection to poor nordsmen, smh.

[mushroom_gal]

You don't need a material shortage for weapons that are more resource efficient and easier to produce to be useful. While it is pretty clear they wouldn't have had a notable shortage of iron preventing them from making swords in higher quantities, the relative simplicity and affordability (for lack of a better term) of axes could still have been an advantage

[Incandescentiron]

Well known as woodworkers and boat builders, axes may simply have been comfortable to use as muscle memory would likely make them confident to wield. If I worked with a tool on a daily basis that happened to be deadly, it would likely be my weapon of choice.

[chadherbert]

Brainstorming: less rust while at sea? More heavily wooded area? More useful for setting up camp and preparing firewood while in wilderness? Intimidation? More effective against armoured resistance? Identification? Techniques specific to Axes like hooking shields, weapons, or heads, or shield-breaking? Some religious/heroic affiliation? Maybe the evolution into the Dane-axe holds a hint to its usage? 🤔

[nicholasduanetapani]

I personally think it's just a matter of utility. I think things like the Dane Axe are purely weapons, but I imagine many can be used interchangeably as tools or weapons. Not too dissimilar from tomahawks in the modern era.

[fuferito]

Vikings, by the nature of their chosen profession, did not have any shortage of wealth. These were individuals who were flush with cash; they traded from Iceland to Samarkand; they had cornered the slave trade from the Baltic to Gibraltar.
They did not choose to arm themselves with axes because they were poor.