Slitherine

Just a thought.
So, as I read it, if I have an Huscarl ,armoured, axe against say Norman, armoured, offensive spears. Both superior so ignore that.
So impact both would have the same POA and melee the axe 10 POA more.
Both armoured, so no one advantaged/disadvantaged POA in armour.

If I took, if there is such a beast, a HI unprotected superior axeman against the same Norman armoured offensive spears then the factors are exactly the same as axe negates the 1st 50 POA in melee. Being in a shirt is the same as mail armour which doesn’t seem right. Does armouring your axemen makes no difference, other than expense?
Does that sound right? Should the Huscarl armoured axe get an advantage for axe against an armoured opponent to reduce their armour or huscarls count their armour +25 POA and opponent doesn’t?

What was the reason for the adoption of the axe rather than remaining as offensive spears for Huscarls – was it a more destructive melee weapon?

The only advantage for axe armoured is when up against well armoured, so Varangians for example?

If I took, if there is such a beast, a HI unprotected superior axeman against the same Norman armoured offensive spears then the factors are exactly the same

The unarmoured version would not get the +10 POA in melee. For that, they must be armoured.

We have to take into account all of the actual historical matchups involving HW, and the current rules are the compromise we came up with to get the best overall result.

What was the reason for the adoption of the axe rather than remaining as offensive spears for Huscarls – was it a more destructive melee weapon?

Nobody actually knows. The +10 POA for armoured axe-wielders is a nod to it being more than just fashion.

Its enthusiastic adoption by the largely unarmoured Irish suggests that it was a good weapon for unarmoured troops to use.

The logic of only the armoured axemen getting the +10 POA in melee, is that their added protection means they can fight in a less cautious manner.

Richard, thanks for the explanation , makes sense in historical and game situations for playability

One interesting quote that supports the "armor penetrating" nature of Dane Axe is from the Irish text Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib. It describes 10th-11th century events and was written about 100 years after the fact but pretty clearly describes Dane Axe being used to "cut and maim the close well-fastened coats of mail". The text goes on to mention swords being good against "skins and bodies and skulls". It doesn't strike me as the most... objective text possible but it certainly seems believable in terms of what different weapon can do (although cutting mail seems less likely than maiming).

Here's a link to the text: https://archive.org/details/cogadhgaedh ... 2/mode/2up

Armoured units being able to comfortably use two handed weapons to their full effect also matches the late medieval development in knightly weapons. As plate became more common the shield became less important and ultimately two handed weapons like Pollaxe became the main weapon of dismounted knights and men-at-arms.