Ethipian Agema (or Guard)

**athanaric** · 09-25-2009, 11:16

Originally Posted by chenkai11

Why it was taken out?

Wrong timeframe IIRC. Same goes for their Germanic brethren who were left out too.

**Ludens** · 09-25-2009, 18:19

Originally Posted by athanaric

Wrong timeframe IIRC. Same goes for their Germanic brethren who were left out too.

Although you are correct on the Merjoz, the Ptolemaic Ethiopian guard was replaced because new evidence indicated that they were a ceremonial rather than battlefield unit. IIRC they were instituted by one of the later Ptolemean kings. As far as I know, two-handed Germanic axes are a late Viking/Saxon development, so the Merjoz unit was almost a millennium out of the timeframe.

**Fluvius Camillus** · 09-26-2009, 15:30

Originally Posted by Ludens

Although you are correct on the Merjoz, the Ptolemaic Ethiopian guard was replaced because new evidence indicated that they were a ceremonial rather than battlefield unit. IIRC they were instituted by one of the later Ptolemean kings. As far as I know, two-handed Germanic axes are a late Viking/Saxon development, so the Merjoz unit was almost a millennium out of the timeframe.

Ok thank you, that answers my question.

~Fluvius

**Phalanx300** · 09-26-2009, 17:55

Originally Posted by Ludens

Although you are correct on the Merjoz, the Ptolemaic Ethiopian guard was replaced because new evidence indicated that they were a ceremonial rather than battlefield unit. IIRC they were instituted by one of the later Ptolemean kings. As far as I know, two-handed Germanic axes are a late Viking/Saxon development, so the Merjoz unit was almost a millennium out of the timeframe.

Yes, though it was probably rarely used like the bow, it was an ordinary day tool so it was kindoff the weapon you'd only take if there was nothing better since weapons were status.

And I also asked on the TWC, you said that Germanics would also wear the Saex but I always thought it was purely a Saxon/Viking weapon. Then again its essentially an simple knife which even Germanics probably would have used as a side arm(just imagine your spear breaking).

**Ludens** · 09-26-2009, 18:48

Originally Posted by Phalanx300

Yes, though it was probably rarely used like the bow, it was an ordinary day tool so it was kindoff the weapon you'd only take if there was nothing better since weapons were status.

Two-handed axes are no tools, they are specialist weapons. IIRC they were mainly used by huscarles, the elite forces of Viking and Saxon warlords. For that matter normal axes weren't exactly the poor-man's melee-weapon either: medieval men-at-arms would have used one-handed war-axes next to swords, maces, etc. An axe hasn't got the reach or versatility of a sword, but it's quite handy and less likely to break.

About the saex, I can't really answer you. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

**Phalanx300** · 09-26-2009, 19:16

Originally Posted by Ludens

Two-handed axes are no tools, they are specialist weapons. IIRC they were mainly used by huscarles, the elite forces of Viking and Saxon warlords. For that matter normal axes weren't exactly the poor-man's melee-weapon either: medieval men-at-arms would have used one-handed war-axes next to swords, maces, etc. An axe hasn't got the reach or versatility of a sword, but it's quite handy and less likely to break.

About the saex, I can't really answer you. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

I mean that a wood cutting axe was an ordinary days weapon just like the bow, your weapon ment status.

**Kevin** · 09-26-2009, 19:54

Wait, so noone got the idea of using 2-handed axes until the Vikings showed up?

**Aemilius Paulus** · 09-26-2009, 20:17

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wait, so noone got the idea of using 2-handed axes until the Vikings showed up?

Well, is it not an exceedingly arduous task to attempt to defend oneself with an two-handed axe? Spears are mentioned always breaking in the books I have read about Ancient Greece. That was a problem. Now imagine if you have no shield, ad the axe is all you have to parry blows. Not to mention, you are not fighting in a dense formation, so you have but yourself to look out for yourself. One handed-axe seems as a much more viable weapon.

Not to mention, in the Antiquity you did not have the same proliferation of maille around Germania as you did with the Norse. By the times of the Norse raiders, maille was quite common in Anglia, France, as well as in the Nordic domains. Now you needed better weapons, and the trade-off between offensive and defensive power was less unbalanced.

Or so I think. I myself am not very well informed in the Norse studies. Anything I wrote about the Norse is speculation, although the proliferation of maille was a true phenomenon.