Talk:Dane axe

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Richard Coeur de Lion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Around 14 % of Denmark is covered by forest. 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)
thread_title:  Danish Axe? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One- or two-handed? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article name

message: 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)
thread_title: A bit of a makeover

message: 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)
thread_title:  Petersen Axe Typology