Talk:Dane axe

Richard Coeur de Lion

What on earth is the evidence for Richard Coeur de Lion making use of a Danish type Axe? He is reputed to have used an Axe, but as far as I know it is much more likely to have been a shorter Battle Axe type, which saw fairly common use.--M.J.Stanham 19:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I have found the passage that was being referred to. Although it does not appear in more contemporary accounts, Richard is described in one of the continuations of William of Tyre as wielding a "Dane Axe" during the relief of Jaffa. When I have a bit more time I will add it and cite the source. --M.J.Stanham (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stumbled across the likely source of this assertion last year. At the relief of Jaffa, he was recorded as wielding a Danish axe in the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, the modern edition being found in The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation, ed. Peter W. Edbury, p. 117.--M.J.Stanham (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Useful. I'll edit into the text when I get a moment. Dickens may sadly have to go Monstrelet (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Danish Axe?

Danish Axe? Danish axe sounds somehwat funny to me as Denmark hardly have any trees at all. The Axe is originally a workmans tool, and considering how few trees there are in Denmark I say this article is POV at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastykermit (talk • contribs)

Hardly had trees? What do you mean? There are plenty of trees in Denmark, and in the viking time there were maybe 4 times more. The name danish axe or dane axe. Is what some historians call that type. Specialy English and Danish since were are found tousands of these, which believed to have originated in Denmark. The national museum of Denmark is full with these axes. It has nothing to do with pov, it's just a name. --Tesko111111 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Around 14 % of Denmark is covered by forest.[1] True, this number was once much lower. Around 1800, there was hardly any trees left. However, this was the result of excessive logging much later than the period we're talking about here. 1,000 years ago, much land in Denmark was still covered by forests. According to this website, the figure was around 80-90% at the dawn of the Viking Age. Anyway, the main issue here must be how the English-speaking world normally refers to this tool. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a fairly broad re-write of this article. I tried to fill in the description of the axe with more detail, organized and re-wrote the sections on usage and history, and changed the reference to Richard, as there is no way to verify that he used a Danish axe specifically, only that he used axes in several battles. I am going to continue to add references once I figure out how, sorry about that. I'm also working of getting an image, as i think this will help a whole lot. --User:Agent032125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent032125 (talk • contribs) 02:45, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone changed the thickness from 2mm to 3mm, I got the 2mm measurement from a conversation I had with Hank Reinhart, who has been recongized as an authority on weapons for the last 30 years. I have the conversation archived if you would like a direct quote. I realize that 2mm seems thin, but that's what he reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent032125 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually of a depiction of a Danish axe over about 4ft being used in combat? I can only of ones that are obviously serving ceremonial contexts.

• Yes, there is a carving from Byzantium of a man stripped to the waist holding an axe that is as tall or taller than he is. Since I don't own the image, though, I couldn't add it. wooden hafts are highly perishable, abd noone at the time bothered writing down or describing these things in detail, so for haft length were going off of visual depictions such as the Bayeux tapestry, which can be subject to artistic conventions and therefore distortions. One common element, though, is that the axes depicted tend to be about chin high. Of course this would vary considerably based on the user. - Agent032125
  • So no Scandanavian contexts. Did the carving actually have the warrior wielding it in combat or is it like the Bayeaux Tapestry where the only chin length ones are those used as symbols of status?
    • How would a depiction of a Varangian be something other than Scandanavian? I'm not making any judgements of whether the image is symbolic of status or intended to depic "realistic" combat, I'm simply reporting what was depicted. Here is the ivory carving, FYI. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/relics/relics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent032125 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I trhink we can rule out this particular carving as providing any sort of decent reference for length of the haft. Unless we wish to try and go against archeological evidence for viking sword blades as this reference would have us wielding swords with 4 1/2 feet long blades. --82.28.44.83 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

One- or two-handed?

Is this weapon obviously a one- or two-handed item, or is it a "bastard"? I'm wondering if this would be a common (one-handed) weapon for a warrior with the typical roundshield, or a two-handed (specialists?) weapon, or if the category is broad enough to encompass both. Boris B (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Danish axe was a two-handed weapon. As a polearm it would not have been usable singlehandedly. This picture from the Bayeux tapestry clearly illustrates that.--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that the Bayeux tapestry is the be-all and end-all of weapon depictions, but it would appear that it is a 2-handed weapon. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Does anyone know why the article is called Viking Axe, rather than Danish Axe? While it is fair to describe the weapon as of Viking origin, Danish axe allows far more discussion of it's evolution post 11th. Century. It also distinguishes it from other forms of Viking axe (single handed, throwing, bearded etc.) It is notable that the text refers to the weapon as a Danish Axe or Dane-axe, not a Viking Axe. Monstrelet (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A Viking axe is not necessarily a Dane axe; no one would argue that the Mammen axe wasn't viking but it's a small one-handed weapon. I'm moving this article. BodvarBjarki (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion: shouldn't it be Dane axe (uncapitalized)?72.200.151.13 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable question. It depends whether the combination is considered a proper noun in its entirety, or whether "Dane" is just an adjective.Monstrelet (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as a proper noun. As it is, the capitalization is not even close to being consistent either way. Also: certainly, hafted axe (an alternative name given in the lead) should not be capitalized just to accord with the other names. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your dialect of English, but "Dane" is not a strong adjectival form, and "a Dane axe" is not grammatical, in my dialect of American English.173.66.5.216 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Dane axe is certainly a form used outside this article e.g. in the national museum of Denmark site. However, Danish axe is probably the more common form. I wouldn't object to a change on a common usage argument. Monstrelet (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a makeover

I've taken the opportunity to extend the history section and put in some references. Areas that would be useful to follow up IMO would be

• Post-1100 images e.g. Death of St. Olaf
• A look at the mentions of Hastings & Huscarls - this is an area of scholarly debate so referencing of statements is particularly important
• References for the Varangian material
• A good reference for St. Olaf - his saga is online
• Something on the development of axes in Scandinavia post 1100
• Russian use/development of Viking axes
• Pre-galloglas use of the Viking Axe in Ireland

Monstrelet (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Petersen Axe Typology

The references to Petersen should be removed, it's ambiguous and uninformative. There's no point in including a category without a meaningful reference to the system of categorization. It's a bit like going to a land where no one speaks English and telling them that you're wearing a "wrist-watch" and expecting them to know what your talking about. Fourisplenty (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)