How many two handed weapons are there?

[steelabjur]

As I understand it the Rhompaia (and the closely related Falx) was a weapon almost unique to the Thracian peoples. As these peoples were largely absorbed into the Roman empire it seems to have fallen out of use. Unless I am mistaken it does not seem to be properly mentioned after the 2nd century - at least not until it is suddenly mentioned again in the descriptions of the Varangian Guard, over half a millennium later.

It is highly unlikely that the "Rhompaia" of the Varangian Guard from Byzantine records was actually a rhompaia. The rhompaia was not a weapon used in Scandinavia; if you are employing a people for their natural martial skills why would you then equip them with a weapon they cannot use very well? The Varangian guard "Rhompaia" is therefore commonly interpreted as being a two handed axe, rather than a rhompaia proper. Perhaps the Byzantines did not have a proper term for "dane axe". The Romans were infamously vague with their descriptions and quite commonly loosely interchanged terms to describe the same weapon. It appears that the Byzantines may well have continued this trend. 

With this in mind, a two handed axe (which surely WAS in general use) is MORE plausible than an actual rhompaia.

I don't know where your getting the Rhompaia of the Varangian Guard was an axe when it's stated in The Alexiad (penned around 114 that they were "great iron swords". Even in modern Greek the name is preserved as meaning "a big broad sword". One would also assume contemporary scholars like Michael Psellos would know the difference between a bloody great sword and an axe (and he specifically called them rhomphaia) and described them as a "one-edged sword of heavy iron which they carry suspended from the right shoulder" in his Chronographia. All this is actually covered on the wiki page I linked.

 

[Scutatus]

"A great iron sword" is NOT a rhomphaia. A rhomphaia was a (usually) curved blade sharpened on the inside of the curve, so that the more extremely curved versions actually resembled a scythe more than a sword.

Whether big sword or big axe, the Varangian "rhomphaia" was likely anything but.

In addition - and I hesitate to say this - but in 1148 the description of the Varangians was already probably inaccurate, since they likely last saw service  at Manzikert, where they fell almost to a man. A historian in 1148 trying to describe a unit that had not existed for eighty years - hmmm, yes, that's going to be accurate. Not.

 

[Richard of longbottom]

Why not just add the Rhomphaia as a 2H weapon (it's historically classified as a polearm, but contemporary sources called it a sword and gameplay-wise it makes sense as a 2H weapon)? At least it has historical evidence that it existed before (examples have been found dating from 300-400 BC), during, and after (it was the weapon of choice of the Varangian Guard) the time period the DLC is set in, and it's existence on the market could be played off as a rarity brought up from the Byzantine. Makes more sense to me than arguing for the inclusion of a 2H axe that has no record of existing during the period.

wtf why would they add a rhomphoia and what are your sources for the byzantine using it and would enough vikings use it for It
To be relevant In any way

 

[Stylus]

A pike is more than a long spear. And I disagree that it's irrelevant. I don't see why adding something that the devs feel would be out of place should be fine if it's restricted only to the player's character.

But no, we need the utmost of historical authenticity! Only things that we KNOW for SURE existed can be allowed in this game! For example, trolls and their clubs!

Outstanding. Made me laugh hard.

 

[Scutatus]

There is that. Brytenwalda keep using the "there must be absolute evidence that it existed" defence for what they have and haven't included. But then have put a troll in the game?!

If they can include a troll, why not a two handed axe? 

The two handed axe at least did actually exist!

I'm sorry Brytenwalda, but if there really is a troll ( I have yet to get that far) then all arguments of "historical authenticity" lose any credibility. If there is a troll there can be double handed axes - because I know which I personally find more "historically authentic"  - and it sure isn't the troll!

 

[matmannen]

No, chain mail wasn't common except for the rich. As that stands the only reliable counter to missiles are shields, therefore few are willing to sacrifice their protective shield for for a long shafted weapon. This same development hapened during the late medieval era. Simply the enviomrent didn't allow the use of a two handed weapon to get a wide appeal, there simple wasn't....

I said it wasn't common. Reread my post. And shield walls offer plenty of protection, on top of that having a shield and having a two-handed axe are not mutually exclusive. This wasn't a problem a century or two later when relatively little had changed, shields were just as common and yet dane axes became popular.

Little had changed? You mean little like better armour, armour becoming much accessible and plenty. Yeah, that's just a minor thing, you are right... 

The appearens of the Dane axe is concistant with the development and use of armour...

 

[Richard of longbottom]

I want a seax with a more ornamental designs on it

 

[Yighit]

It seems devs will have to include dane axes in the next patch. Otherwise, this debate will never end.

 

[Redleg]

It seems devs will have to include dane axes in the next patch. Otherwise, this debate will never end.

It's probably on the top of their to-do list.

 

[Grimes]

No, chain mail wasn't common except for the rich. As that stands the only reliable counter to missiles are shields, therefore few are willing to sacrifice their protective shield for for a long shafted weapon. This same development hapened during the late medieval era. Simply the enviomrent didn't allow the use of a two handed weapon to get a wide appeal, there simple wasn't....

I said it wasn't common. Reread my post. And shield walls offer plenty of protection, on top of that having a shield and having a two-handed axe are not mutually exclusive. This wasn't a problem a century or two later when relatively little had changed, shields were just as common and yet dane axes became popular.

Little had changed? You mean little like better armour, armour becoming much accessible and plenty. Yeah, that's just a minor thing, you are right... 

The appearens of the Dane axe is concistant with the development and use of armour...

Armor get better, yes, which is why the dane axe became -popular-. But shields and shield walls were not removed from the field of battle. Dane axes still had a place in shieldwall combat, just like they would have if they existed in the 9th century. That was my point.

Again, reread my post as you're obviously having trouble putting 2 and 2 together.

 

[Sadrithos]

There is that. Brytenwalda keep using the "there must be absolute evidence that it existed" defence for what they have and haven't included. But then have put a troll in the game?!

If they can include a troll, why not a two handed axe? 

The two handed axe at least did actually exist!

I'm sorry Brytenwalda, but if there really is a troll ( I have yet to get that far) then all arguments of "historical authenticity" lose any credibility. If there is a troll there can be double handed axes - because I know which I personally find more "historically authentic"  - and it sure isn't the troll!

The troll is literally just a tall strong guy with a club at a bridge. His clubs a bit unbalanced, but hes just a man, just the beneficiary of a superstitious belief in things like trolls, same with the "elf"

 

[Scutatus]

The troll is literally just a tall strong guy with a club at a bridge. His clubs a bit unbalanced, but hes just a man, just the beneficiary of a superstitious belief in things like trolls, same with the "elf"

Oh Ok. whew. That is actually quite a relief. Thanks for the info Sadrithos. 

I would still like to see the double handed axe though.  I believe there is enough historical justification for it, as I have cited above.

 

[Grimes]

There is that. Brytenwalda keep using the "there must be absolute evidence that it existed" defence for what they have and haven't included. But then have put a troll in the game?!

If they can include a troll, why not a two handed axe? 

The two handed axe at least did actually exist!

I'm sorry Brytenwalda, but if there really is a troll ( I have yet to get that far) then all arguments of "historical authenticity" lose any credibility. If there is a troll there can be double handed axes - because I know which I personally find more "historically authentic"  - and it sure isn't the troll!

The troll is literally just a tall strong guy with a club at a bridge. His clubs a bit unbalanced, but hes just a man, just the beneficiary of a superstitious belief in things like trolls, same with the "elf"

Yeah, the 65b damage club is "just a little imbalanced..." 

 

[Redleg]

"A great iron sword" is NOT a rhomphaia. A rhomphaia was a (usually) curved blade sharpened on the inside of the curve, so that the more extremely curved versions actually resembled a scythe more than a sword.

Whether big sword or big axe, the Varangian "rhomphaia" was likely anything but.

In addition - and I hesitate to say this - but in 1148 the description of the Varangians was already probably inaccurate, since they likely last saw service  at Manzikert, where they fell almost to a man. A historian in 1148 trying to describe a unit that had not existed for eighty years - hmmm, yes, that's going to be accurate. Not.

You speak with such authority for a person who is even farther removed from 867 AD Britain than the historian of 1148 was of the Varangian Guard. 

 

[Dan11311]

Didn't Brytenwalda have a bunch of 2 handed stuff though?

Oh you bet they did, but the devs and their drones don't like to be reminded of that.

I thought the two handed axes were only in service with the Dena in Brytenwalda? They were anachronistic in there as well. The devs admitted as much. They stated they wanted to be more accurate. That being said I'm sure they could have included more variety of historically accurate items if they had more time.

 

[Dan11311]

There is that. Brytenwalda keep using the "there must be absolute evidence that it existed" defence for what they have and haven't included. But then have put a troll in the game?!

If they can include a troll, why not a two handed axe? 

The two handed axe at least did actually exist!

I'm sorry Brytenwalda, but if there really is a troll ( I have yet to get that far) then all arguments of "historical authenticity" lose any credibility. If there is a troll there can be double handed axes - because I know which I personally find more "historically authentic"  - and it sure isn't the troll!

What troll? Is it an actual troll or just an ugly dude? Actually, M&B doesn't have good faces to begin with.

 

[Ralepozozaxe]

There is that. Brytenwalda keep using the "there must be absolute evidence that it existed" defence for what they have and haven't included. But then have put a troll in the game?!

If they can include a troll, why not a two handed axe? 

The two handed axe at least did actually exist!

I'm sorry Brytenwalda, but if there really is a troll ( I have yet to get that far) then all arguments of "historical authenticity" lose any credibility. If there is a troll there can be double handed axes - because I know which I personally find more "historically authentic"  - and it sure isn't the troll!

What troll? Is it an actual troll or just an ugly dude? Actually, M&B doesn't have good faces to begin with.

There is a place called "Troll's Bridge" in Denmark. There is a tall man there who you have to pay a toll to, otherwise he will attack you. He is fairly tough to beat, as he has a 65b damage 2-handed club.

 

[matmannen]

No, chain mail wasn't common except for the rich. As that stands the only reliable counter to missiles are shields, therefore few are willing to sacrifice their protective shield for for a long shafted weapon. This same development hapened during the late medieval era. Simply the enviomrent didn't allow the use of a two handed weapon to get a wide appeal, there simple wasn't....

I said it wasn't common. Reread my post. And shield walls offer plenty of protection, on top of that having a shield and having a two-handed axe are not mutually exclusive. This wasn't a problem a century or two later when relatively little had changed, shields were just as common and yet dane axes became popular.

Little had changed? You mean little like better armour, armour becoming much accessible and plenty. Yeah, that's just a minor thing, you are right... 

The appearens of the Dane axe is concistant with the development and use of armour...

Armor get better, yes, which is why the dane axe became -popular-. But shields and shield walls were not removed from the field of battle. Dane axes still had a place in shieldwall combat, just like they would have if they existed in the 9th century. That was my point.

Again, reread my post as you're obviously having trouble putting 2 and 2 together.

Oh, I have problems understanding, isn't hat cute...

It's really simple, people didn't use two handed axes becasue they had no use. As armour was not good it was a bad idea to sacrifice your prodective shield, you know the thing keeping you alive, for a polearm held in both hands. It's a really simple concept. When armour became better the twohanded polearms started to be used...

 

[Meevar the Mighty]

NOTE: I am no expert in spears so take this with a grain of salt...

The pike being alot longer then the spear had to have a broader shaft as to keep it from bending to much (you know the spearhead acts as a weight cousing the pike to bend downwards when held at square). This means that the head would have a hole larger then normal spears, this means that you can estimate the leanght of a spear by accounting for how large a pole the spearhead is made for... just a thought...

I'm afraid it would be counter productive to have it thicker than a short spear shaft at the pointy end, so the spearhead can be the same size.

As I understand it the Rhomphaia (and the closely related Falx) was a weapon almost unique to the Thracian peoples. As these peoples were largely absorbed into the Roman empire it seems to have fallen out of use. Unless I am mistaken it does not seem to be properly mentioned after the 2nd century - at least not until it is suddenly mentioned again in the descriptions of the Varangian Guard, something like eight centuries later.

It is highly unlikely that the "Rhomphaia" of the Varangian Guard from Byzantine records was actually a rhomphaia. The rhomphaia was not a weapon used in Scandinavia; if you are employing a people for their natural martial skills why would you then equip them with a weapon they cannot use very well? The Varangian guard "Rhomphaia" is therefore commonly interpreted as being a two handed axe, rather than a rhomphaia proper. Indeed, 11th century artwork from the empire appears to support this. Perhaps the Byzantines did not have a proper term for "dane axe". The Romans were infamously vague with their descriptions and interchanged terms quite confusingly. It appears that the Byzantines may well have continued this trend.  But besides this, whether they used Rhomphaia or not, the Varangian guard proper fall after the period of this game, and so will be disregarded as a source by Brytenwalda.

Maybe they were adherants to a Heyerdahl-like interpretation of viking ethnicity and sought to equip them appropriately. I reckon the varangians would have been tickled pink.

 

[Aklis]

It's really simple, people didn't use two handed axes becasue they had no use. As armour was not good it was a bad idea to sacrifice your prodective shield, you know the thing keeping you alive, for a polearm held in both hands. It's a really simple concept. When armour became better the twohanded polearms started to be used...

Mail was by all means used in 868 and was the dominant form of armour in western Europe until the invention of plate armour. In fact, it predated two-handed axes by several centuries. What are you talking about?