[Low-Tech] Labrys

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Yes. A single-bitted axe (wood axe at least) has a thick and heavy back-side, which is missing on the double-bitted axe.

Axes designed for combat are very thin while wood axes are more wedge-shaped. You couldn't add a second bit to a combat axe without using more metal and thus increasing its weight.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Axes designed for combat are very thin while wood axes are more wedge-shaped. You couldn't add a second bit to a combat axe without using more metal and thus increasing its weight.

While that extra weight could certainly increase Min ST (and possibly upset the weapon's balance) would it be sufficient to add +1 damage, considering the granularity of GURPS?

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

While that extra weight could certainly increase Min ST (and possibly upset the weapon's balance) would it be sufficient to add +1 damage, considering the granularity of GURPS?

I wouldn't think so, not even on a Danish axe.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

While that extra weight could certainly increase Min ST (and possibly upset the weapon's balance) would it be sufficient to add +1 damage, considering the granularity of GURPS?

There's no simple canonical principle of weight adding to damage though you do sort of see that with the Gada and Hyperdense rules. You''d need to add 50% weight/2 lbs to an Axe to get a +1 to damage there.

If you look at the Customization rules in MA a backspike, thrusting point, hook or sickle blade only add 0.5 lbs. I doubt even a full axe blade would go over 1 lbs and well short of +2 lbs.

[Kuroshima]

Double bitted axes might be a D&D-ísm, but an ax with a pick or hook on the back is realistic, right?

[Anders]

Not as much a D&D-ism as a DF-ism. They sure were present in early Swedish RPGs - mostly as weapons for (appropriately enough) minotaurs. They were kind of the ultimate badass weapon.

[Joseph Paul]

David Nicolle includes depictions of Byzantine double-bitted axes in Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era. He outright claims their use by Byzantine forces in the Medieval Warfare Source Book. They may be rare but there seems to be some evidence for their use in a military setting.

I don't have AaAotCE but it could be enlightening if some one wants to bring Nicolle's findings to the forum for discussion.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Double bitted axes might be a D&D-ísm, but an ax with a pick or hook on the back is realistic, right?

Yup. When you go up against mail and plate armored opponents, throwing a crushing head or spike head onto the back of your saddle axe. Adding a thrusting spike to the head isn't a bad idea either: it gives you more versatility.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Axes designed for combat are very thin while wood axes are more wedge-shaped. You couldn't add a second bit to a combat axe without using more metal and thus increasing its weight.

Combat axes don't have a poll? That seems odd, given that the point of having that weight on the opposite side from the blade is to bring the center of gravity back onto the line of the shaft, which would seem at least as valuable for a weapon as for a cutting tool.

I can't see any reason a double headed axe couldn't work. The gigantic ones seen in art are clearly useless, but then they'd be just as useless if you cut one of the blades off. I don't see any *advantage* to it either, but putting another edge on the back side of an already functional combat axe seems pretty harmless as fantasy weapons go.