Battleaxes that were wielded both one-handed and two-handed?

[Hobgoblin]

I was thinking about how various RPGs class battleaxes (RuneQuest, some forms of D&D, etc): as weapons that can be wielded in either one or two hands, like the historical longsword (usually called a bastard sword in RPGs, by dint of D&D mischaracterising an arming sword as a "longsword").

Is there any historical basis for this? I was trying to think of examples, but as far as I can see, battleaxes were either relatively light weapons wielded in one hand (what RPGs would call a hand axe) or long-hafted weapons like the Dane axe, sparth or poleaxe that would not have been wielded in one hand.

So it looks to me as if the older D&D distinction between "hand axe" (one-handed) and "battleaxe" (two-handed) was more or less right - with the proviso that the two-handed axe is essentially the same thing as the poleaxe (albeit sometimes in earlier forms without the spikes/hammers).

But am I missing some examples of larger axes that were intended to be wielded either in one hand or two? I suspect their presence in RPGs might be explained by the notion of dwarves wielding relatively short-handed axes in both hands (Gimli, for example, who wields an axe short enough to be carried in his belt but doesn't use a shield).

Thanks in advance for any pointers!

[v_lazy_dragon]

Not really a historical example, but I know some dark age reenactors like intermediate sized 2 handed axes (normally nicknamed boarding axes, to distinguish them from a Dane axe that should have a haft that reaches one's chin). Some of these have a haft aboht 3 ft long which can be used one handed, albeit they are not optimised for it

[Hobgoblin]

Not really a historical example, but I know some dark age reenactors like intermediate sized 2 handed axes (normally nicknamed boarding axes, to distinguish them from a Dane axe that should have a haft that reaches one's chin). Some of these have a haft aboht 3 ft long which can be used one handed, albeit they are not optimised for it

That's interesting - thanks! It seems the historical examples are from much later and were (presumably) used without a shield. I can't imagine a 3' axe would be easy to wield for long in one hand.

[v_lazy_dragon]

No... I was never that convinced by them! They always seemed clumsy in 1 hand. Somewhat the worse of two worlds! That said, a lot of reenactment "1 handed axes" have 18-24" hafts so it's not as crazy as might sound

[Hobgoblin]

Yes, I imagine a lot comes down to balance. One-handed swords can be quite long, because the balance point is close to the hit. But 'impact' weapons like maces, axes and warhammers are balanced close to the head - so a short haft is pretty much essential.

The more I think about it, the more the "one- or two-handed" weapon seems a bit of a myth. I don't think longswords were generally used in combination with a shield - but were "one- or two-handed" in the sense that the shieldless user switched between one-handed and two-handed grips while grappling, locking, etc.

Spears would be an exception, I suppose: two-handed if you didn't have a shield but one-handed if you did.

[Cat]

A shield won't last all day long, especially when blocking axes!

If you have an iron boss for a center grip on the shield, you eventually wind up with a cestus-like iron smacker.

Otherwise, that spear or sword will get used 2-handed after the shield has done its faithful duty.

[Hobgoblin]

A shield won't last all day long, especially when blocking axes!

If you have an iron boss for a center grip on the shield, you eventually wind up with a cestus-like iron smacker.

Otherwise, that spear or sword will get used 2-handed after the shield has done its faithful duty.

Good point - although the sword might not be viable as a two-hander, depending on the hilt. I suppose you might get both hands clasping a short hilt to strengthen a bind or parry, though.

I wonder if the idea of a relatively short two-handed battleaxe in RPGs comes in part from people thinking about how they would fight with a wood-axe - and forgetting that a battleaxe would have a much lighter head.

[Blackwolf]

I wonder if this is a literary prop, for instance Hurin taking up an axe two-handed, meaning things are getting serious (heroic).

[Hobgoblin]

I wonder if this is a literary prop, for instance Hurin taking up an axe two-handed, meaning things are getting serious (heroic).

Yes, it might well be - great point! It's a vivid way to convey the use of all available force. I can't think of an example offhand, but I've a feeling that there are similar episodes in the sagas - perhaps sometimes involving tools rather than weapons of war.

There's certainly a literary trope of a strong man wielding a weapon that's too heavy for a normal man. The most recent example I can think of is GRR Martin's Robert Baratheon, who wielded a warhammer that Ned Stark could hardly lift. That struck me as glaringly ridiculous, but I'm sure it's got plenty of worthy antecedents: Dickens claimed that Richard I's battleaxe had "twenty English pounds of English steel in its head" - which is just as unfeasible!

(It's something that many miniature designers don't seem to get either: a strong man (or monster) would be much better off using a normal weapon to hit with extra hard - rather than using an outsize weapon that would tire him quicker.

[Blackwolf]

Indeed, Runequest as you know makes much use characteristics  such as strength ie a trolĺ hits much harder with a club than a human et cetera